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

Annotations state destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this creates a resource. The description adds value by explaining the visibility semantics ('global means every agent sees it') and the prerequisite lookups for ids/labels. It does not discuss idempotency, side effects beyond creation, or rate limits, but for a creation tool the provided context is solid.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: definition, prerequisite lookups, visibility semantics. No redundancy or filler; every sentence delivers actionable detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested actions, 14 action types) and lack of output schema, the description covers the critical usage pattern: what a macro is, how to resolve ids, and visibility impact. It could mention how to order actions or any limits, but the schema covers most of that. Overall complete enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 67%, with the actions array carrying a detailed per-action description. The description itself does not add parameter syntax; it only points to helper tools for ids and labels. The schema already documents visibility and action_params thoroughly, so the description adds little new parameter information, but it correctly directs the agent to the right retrieval tools.

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 the verb and resource (create a macro) and adds a functional definition of what a macro is: a named sequence of actions an agent runs on a conversation with one click. This distinguishes it from siblings like execute_macro or update_macro, though it could more directly contrast with those alternatives.

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 prerequisite guidance: 'Call list_agents, list_teams or list_labels first when an action needs an id or a label.' This tells the agent when to perform preparatory steps. It does not, however, state when to use this tool versus update_macro or create_canned_response, but the action-oriented context of building a sequence is clear.

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