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

Annotations only say non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world; the description adds the crucial fact that the automation goes LIVE immediately and sends real DMs to real people, which is the highest-stakes side effect here. It also mandates a human-approval gate before invocation, adding context annotations cannot express.

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?

Two sentences, no padding: the first defines the tool and its live-fire effect, the second carries the approval requirement, the accountId source and the platform limit. The highest-risk information is front-loaded.

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 14-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the risk profile, prerequisites and platform scope adequately, and the rich per-field schema covers parameter detail. It does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g. the new automation's id) or what happens on duplicate/invalid keyword config, which an agent creating then referencing the object would benefit from.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by telling the agent which values must be surfaced to the user for approval (dmMessage, keywords, accountId) and where accountId must come from. It does not add semantics for the remaining 11 optional parameters, which rely entirely on 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 precise verb and resource ('Create a comment→DM automation') and immediately characterises the resulting object's runtime behaviour plus platform scope. An agent can tell it apart from update_comment_automation, list_comment_automations and delete_comment_automation from the description alone.

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 a concrete prerequisite ('Use an accountId from list_comment_automations'), a platform restriction ('Instagram and Facebook only'), and a mandatory pre-flight step (get user approval after showing dmMessage, keywords and account). It stops short of naming a when-not condition or an explicit alternative for non-IG/FB accounts, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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