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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), it discloses real behavioral traits: channels 'replaces the current set,' description changes are restricted by action type, and 'Does not notify the owner or mark the brief out of date,' which is a valuable side-effect disclosure. This is far richer than the annotation triad.

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?

It is front-loaded with the action verbs and every sentence earns its place (prerequisites, param rules, side effects). It is a dense single block, so readability is slightly taxed, but there is little waste.

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?

Even without an output schema, it states the return shape ('Returns the action with description, channels, assignedTo and ownerName') and lists side-effect behavior. For a mutation tool with non-trivial constraints, all the information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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?

Although the schema exposes zero properties, the description documents the effective parameters in detail: assignedTo is a user id or sign-in email and accepts null to unassign; channels is the full owning set, at least one, replaces the prior set, order irrelevant. It adds substantial meaning that the empty schema does not carry.

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 opens with the exact operations performed: 'Rename an action, set its owner, change its channels, or edit its description.' This is a specific verb+resource statement that an agent can distinguish from read siblings like devtune_get_actions without opening the schema.

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?

It spells out prerequisites and exclusions explicitly: 'Works on accepted and live actions; restore an archived action first,' and explains that DevTune suggestions have no owner and must be accepted first. It further scopes which actions allow a description edit, so when-to-use and when-not are both covered.

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