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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a significant side effect: it deploys an agent on helpdesk inboxes that no other agent answers. It also reassures that nothing is sent to customers and states what the call returns, which is valuable behavioral context for a non-read-only, open-world mutation.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then adds only high-value context: default behavior, when to use it, the deployment side effect, and the return value. Every sentence earns its place, including the parenthetical detail about connections that cannot take the card.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers the return value by stating that it returns the connection's inboxes. Together with the disclosed side effect and the clear usage conditions, an agent has enough context to invoke this nested-parameter mutation correctly.

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 already 100%, so the schema carries the formal parameter documentation. The description still adds useful meaning by mapping the `note` and `sidebar` booleans to concrete outcomes: an internal note, Aide's card in the ticket sidebar, or both.

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 states a specific configuration action: choosing where Aide's drafts appear in a connected helpdesk, with the concrete options (internal note, sidebar card, or both). It also distinguishes the tool from the initial connection flow by explaining that connecting already enables drafts by default and this tool is for changing that behavior.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: to change the default draft placement or to turn drafts on when get_setup_status asks for it. It also clarifies the when-not condition by noting that connecting already turns drafts on, so the agent does not need this tool merely to establish the initial draft behavior.

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