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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the page is fetched once and an erroring page is refused, [] clears phrases, and nothing is sent (no email dispatch). It stops short of explicitly saying the previously configured target page is replaced.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then the per-parameter rules. Every clause carries distinct information; nothing is repeated from the title or schema verbatim.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important call-time behavior (validation, clearing semantics, no send side effect) and the schema covers workspaceId resolution. Only minor gaps remain, such as success/failure reporting and any permission requirements.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add a real constraint absent from the schema ('up to 3 phrases of up to 3 words') and clarifies path vs same-site URL vs empty string, but the schema already carries the core meaning of each field.

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: choosing the page outreach asks for links to, plus optional anchor phrases. It is clearly separable from siblings like list_links, add_keywords, or set_profile, which operate on different resources.

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?

Gives clear context for when each input applies: omit 'phrases' to keep current ones, pass [] to clear them, use an empty string on 'page' for the homepage. It does not name an explicit alternative tool for related tasks, but the operating context is unambiguous.

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