Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds real behavioral detail for platform_tools (declarative full-replace, custom tools untouched, [] detaches all) and voice_settings, but says nothing about return values, duplicate-name handling, or what a successful create yields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the required parameters and then groups the optional config blocks compactly. Every sentence carries information, though the platform_tools/voice_settings sentences are dense and could be split for readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 10-parameter nested create tool with no output schema and 10% schema coverage, the description is only partially complete. It explains the notable behavioral fields but omits several parameters and any sense of the create response or failure modes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 10%, so the description must compensate. It covers required fields and several config blocks (llmConfig, voiceConfig, chatConfig, voice_settings, platform_tools) but leaves voiceId, description, and assistantType undocumented in both the description and largely the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create an assistant') and names the required fields, so the agent knows exactly what it does. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like assistants_update or assistants_archive, leaving the agent to infer that this is the creation path.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Offers no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no prerequisites beyond the required fields. 'Mirror the dashboard create dialog' gives some context but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice versus assistants_update.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.