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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit for spelling out what the destruction means in practice: existing questions are replaced wholesale and an empty list removes them entirely, which is exactly the behavior an agent must anticipate before calling a destructive tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the replace action and followed by the edge case. Nothing is padded or repeated from the name.

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 destructive mutation on an open-world Instagram account with two undocumented required identifiers, the description covers the mutation semantics but not the scoping or authentication context. It is adequate to call it correctly on the questions array, but thin given the annotation profile and 25% schema coverage.

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 25%, with just brand_id documented, so the description has to carry weight; it partially does by explaining the array semantics (up to 4, empty means remove). But account_id and connection_id remain unexplained in both schema and description, leaving half the required inputs opaque.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Reemplaza las preguntas de inicio de la cuenta de Instagram") and states the ceiling of four. It implicitly contrasts with get_ice_breakers through the verb, but never names the sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 clause "Una lista vacía las quita" gives one concrete usage case (clearing), which is genuinely actionable. However, there is no guidance on when to call this versus get_ice_breakers first, nor any prerequisite about checking current questions before overwriting.

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