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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'write that adds something' is consistent with that. It adds 'returns its result', but says nothing about failure modes, partial success, permission requirements, or that the return payload varies by operation. Useful but thin beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that defines the action, points at the source of truth, and gives concrete examples of what 'create' covers. The docs link is unobtrusive; nothing is padded.

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 generic open-world dispatcher, the description plus a fully documented schema tells an agent where to get both the operation and its arguments. Since there is no output schema, the phrase 'returns its result' is minimal but adequate; only the operation-dependent response shape is left implicit.

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% and the two parameter descriptions already say exactly what the description repeats (operation name from list_operations, arguments per the operation's inputSchema). The description adds no format, constraint, or nesting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Runs') and resource ('a `create` operation of the Aide API'), and clarifies semantics with 'a write that adds something, such as a topic, a macro or a routing rule.' The create/read/update/delete split against the run_* siblings is unambiguous from 'create' plus 'adds something', though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 states the prerequisite workflow clearly: the operation name comes from list_operations and the arguments come from that operation's `inputSchema`. That is real routing guidance. It does not state exclusions (e.g., when to prefer a dedicated typed tool like add_note or deploy_agent instead of this generic dispatcher), which keeps it from a 5.

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