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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses two key traits: saves the action even when brief generation fails, and does not publish content. It also mentions credit reservation for generateBrief, adding cost implications. This is substantial value beyond the schema, though it does not cover all potential edge cases (e.g., idempotency of reuse).

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?

The description is three sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second gives a critical parameter guideline, and the third discloses behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains zero fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 create-action tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, key parameter usage, and critical failure/success behavior. It lacks details on the response format or what 'reuse' entails, but given the simplicity and absence of an output schema, it is adequately complete. The description does not overpromise or leave the agent guessing on essential call decisions.

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 50%, and the description adds meaningful context for generateBrief by clarifying the credit cost and the condition under which it should be set, complementing the schema's default and queue description. The other parameters (promptId, title, description) are self-explanatory strings, and targetUrl already has a schema description. The description effectively compensates for the partial coverage.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Create or reuse an action from a tracked prompt.' It identifies the input source (tracked prompt) and distinguishes from sibling tools like devtune_get_actions or devtune_get_prompt_actions by implying a write operation. The additional behavioral notes (saves even on failure, does not publish) further clarify its role.

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?

The description provides explicit conditional guidance: 'Only set generateBrief when the customer requests metered brief generation (reserves 2 credits).' It also clarifies that saving occurs even if brief generation fails and that content is not published, implying publishing is a separate step. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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