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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it tells the agent to require explicit confirmation and to show the user exactly what will be saved. It also discloses a limitation—'Tools cannot be attached here — the user does that in the dashboard.' The read/write hints already indicate a mutation, so the description builds on them with a process-level constraint.

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 succinct sentences with no redundancy: purpose, confirmation workflow, and a key limitation. Each sentence earns its place and the main goal is front-loaded. The description is as short as it can be while still dealing with the needed behavioral warnings.

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 9-parameter tool with a detailed schema and an output schema available, the description covers the spine: purpose, confirmation requirement, and dashboard attachment limitation. Yet the schema has only 22% parameter coverage, so fields like variables, tags, and keyterms aren't explained by either source. An agent could still be uncertain about what to supply for those optional parameters, so the description does not fully close the gap.

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 low (22%), so the description needs to compensate, and it does help with title, firstMessage, prompt, and confirmed. However, it leaves variables, tags, keyterms, description, and idempotencyKey unsupported by semantic guidance beyond the schema's stripped descriptions. It gives a cartoon of the important parameters but not the full picture.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a call case (reusable script)'), so the tool's core purpose is immediately clear. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the parenthetical definition helps distinguish it from create_call, create_contact, and other create-* tools. The statement 'after explicit confirmation' folds behavior into purpose without obscuring it.

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 gives a clear when-to-use workflow: only after showing the user the title, first message, and prompt and getting approval. However, it never compares this tool to create_call or update_case nor explains when not to use it, stopping short of explicit exclusion. It implies the usage context mostly through the confirmation flow.

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