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

Annotations only declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description goes well beyond that: it discloses the paid-plan constraint, the important edge case that the base is still created but saved switched off when at the live limit, that the confirmation message states this, that the agent should relay it, and that no messages are sent to anyone. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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?

One front-loaded paragraph: purpose first, then the follow-up route, then the plan/limit edge case. Every sentence carries information, though the instruction to 'tell them it is there' slightly restates the preceding clause about the confirmation saying so.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what the confirmation contains and what state the created base ends up in. For a simple 3-param create tool with annotation safety hints, nothing an agent needs to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (name, description, instagramAccountId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Creates an empty knowledge base') and immediately defines the domain concept ('the set of documents HookSend's AI answers direct messages from'), which distinguishes it from knowledge_add_document and knowledge_update. The word 'empty' also disambiguates it from tools that populate a base.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the follow-up tool ('Add documents to it with knowledge_add_document') and gives a clear conditional rule for the paid-plan slot limit and what to tell the customer. It lacks a 'do not use this when...' exclusion versus siblings like knowledge_update, but the usage context is otherwise unambiguous.

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