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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that competitors and audiences REPLACE the whole list (the specific destructive behavior behind destructiveHint=true), caps the lists (20 items of 120 chars), clarifies scope ('applies to drafts written from now on'), and negates side effects ('Sends nothing'). This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose before the constraints, and each sentence carries distinct information (replace semantics, prerequisite, limits, scope). It is dense and packed, but no sentence is wasted.

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 what changes, how lists are replaced, the prerequisite read, size limits, scope of effect, and the explicit absence of sending. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds constraints the schema lacks: list-size limits (20 competitors/audiences, 120 chars) and a plain-language definition of the differentiator. It does not, however, add per-parameter syntax or format detail beyond 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 ('Change') and resource ('the profile every outreach email is written from') and enumerates exactly which fields are editable (niche, competitors, differentiator, audiences). An agent can tell this is a profile-configuration tool distinct from settings-oriented siblings like set_email_settings or set_run_settings.

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 an explicit prerequisite workflow ('read get_campaign first and pass the full list with your edits'), a boundary ('The website itself cannot be changed here'), and the effect timing ('Applies to drafts written from now on'). It also states the input contract ('Pass only the fields to change'), leaving little to inference.

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