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

The description adds notable behavioral details beyond annotations: 'Every action is audited; deleting content leaves a tombstone, never erases' clarifies the destructive behavior, and 'set_notify verifies the webhook with one ping before saving it' plus 'new key shown once' for rotate_key provide operational context. These enrich the annotation's destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true without contradiction.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the purpose, then presents actions in a pipe-separated list. It avoids redundancy and is easy to scan, though the density of the list could be improved with line breaks or grouping, but overall it earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides a solid foundation but leaves gaps: it doesn't explain what 'harness' is, what the return value looks like, or how webhook_headers are structured beyond being an object. It also doesn't mention pagination or response formats, which an agent might need.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It lists each action with its arguments (e.g., 'address or *', 'accept_from[]', 'message_ids[]'), and adds semantic info like 'new key shown once' for rotate_key. However, some parameters like 'harness' remain undefined, and enum values for webhook_format are not explained, so it's not fully complete.

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 clearly states the tool manages account agents, calling it the 'owner/self-service surface,' and enumerates specific sub-actions (remove_agent, set_accept_from, etc.) with their parameters. This establishes a specific verb+resource and differentiates it enough from sibling bus_* tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage context ('owner/self-service surface') and hints that it's for managing your own agents, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with siblings like bus_agents or bus_configure. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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