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

Annotations already indicate mutating (readOnlyHint false), destructive (destructiveHint true), and idempotent (idempotentHint true). The description goes far beyond these: it explains the governed update broker and consent/audit trail, reversibility with specific inspection tools, the requirement of idempotency_key for writes, and the conditional behavior of immediate vs queued application based on authentication context. This adds substantial behavioral context not captured in annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is longer than a single sentence but each clause earns its place: governance, reversibility, idempotency, approval flow, and sibling routing. No filler or repetition, though it could arguably be tightened without losing meaning.

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 tool with 18 parameters, complex approval/audit behavior, and an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains when changes apply immediately vs. queue, how to reverse, the idempotency requirement, and the alternative tool. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 18 parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond restating a few fields (greeting, prompts, etc.) and mentioning idempotency_key and queue_for_approval. It does not compensate for any gaps because there are none, but it also doesn't enrich parameter semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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 edits an agent's live runtime configuration, enumerating the specific fields (greeting, prompts, voice, model, max duration, transfer settings). It also explicitly distinguishes this from the sibling configure_agent_business_rules, which handles a single operational-rules section, so an agent can immediately tell them apart.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it names the alternative (configure_agent_business_rules) and the condition that selects it ('for just a single named operational-rules section'). It also explains the routing behavior (owner/admin immediate, others queue for review), the need for idempotency_key, and points to get_change_history, list_config_versions, and rollback_config for reversing changes. No inference is required.

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