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

Adds context well beyond the annotations: services are user preferences, turning one on is safe and reversible, and the OS permission dialog for Calendar/Reminders/Contacts may appear on a different machine over Cloud Relay. This is valuable behavioral and environmental information not present in annotations, and nothing contradicts them.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place: usage trigger, safety reassurance, and the OS permission nuance. Efficiently packed without waste.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schemaaiman and no complex return values, the description fully covers what it does, when to use it, the safety profile, and a significant environmental edge case. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 100% and the parameter description already lists valid service ids. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; the mention of specific services is behavioral context rather than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Turns... back ON') and resource ('a service in LMCP') and gives the precondition ('after the user turned it off'). The tool's role is unmistakable, and there is no sibling with a similar name to confuse it with.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it when a tool reports that its service is turned off.' It also clarifies that these are user preferences, not failures, which prevents misuse. It doesn't mention alternatives, but none appear to exist among the sibling tools, so the guidance is adequate.

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