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

Annotations already flag this as non-read-only, destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent; the description adds the crucial operational detail that generate-and-test sends a real request and the remote API may record it. That is exactly the kind of side-effect context annotations can't convey, though it doesn't cover failure handling or timeouts.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the mode split; no filler. It could be marginally tightened but every element is informative.

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 7-parameter, destructive, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral split but omits return values, error behavior, and the roles of five undocumented parameters. An agent could invoke it, but would be guessing on several inputs.

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 only 14% (only 'mode' is documented), so the description carries a heavy burden. It compensates well for the mode enum semantics — the single most important dispatch parameter — but says nothing about agentId, toolId, toolName, convoId, message, or what timeoutMs governs.

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 and resource ('Check one HTTP/API action configured on a Convocore agent') and splits the tool into its two operating modes, which lets an agent understand the tool without the schema. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings like test_agent_tool_request, run_agent_auto_test, or get_agent_tool.

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?

The description gives clear context for choosing between the two modes: validate for setup checking, generate-and-test when you want the agent to fill sample inputs and actually fire the URL. It stops short of any when-not-to-use guidance or explicit routing to the sibling test/generate tools.

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