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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations by disclosing the required manage:inbox permission, the preview-vs-commit gate, the optimistic-concurrency contract via expectedUpdatedAt, and recovery behavior after an uncertain write. The stable clientRequestId guidance explains how idempotency is actually achieved.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the parameter contract, then the safety and recovery protocol. No filler or restatement of the title.

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, permission-gated mutation with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it safely: auth scope, preview gate, concurrency token source, idempotency key, and post-failure reconciliation. Nothing material 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 coverage is only 50% and expectedUpdatedAt, enabled, and clientRequestId have no schema descriptions; the description fills that gap by defining expectedUpdatedAt as the exact value from soclo_inbox_settings (null only for an absent switch) and clientRequestId as a stable UUID. This is meaningful semantics an agent cannot infer from types alone.

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 narrow resource: change one connected account's automatic-reply switch, scoped per-account. It also implicitly separates itself from the read-side sibling soclo_inbox_settings, which it names as the source of truth for expectedUpdatedAt.

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?

Explicit sequencing rules: preview first, pass confirm: true only after owner approval, and after an uncertain save read soclo_inbox_settings and reconcile before writing again. It names the alternative (reading settings) and the exact condition that selects it.

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