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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, which is minimal. The description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that the signing secret is returned only once, that telegram_enabled defaults to false, that both channels fire when enabled, that auto_approve is a kill switch, and that rotate_secret breaks existing verification. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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 dense but well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, then the secret warning, then the default behavior. It is longer than average, but every sentence adds non-obvious information that is not in the schema. Slight deduction for density; the mode explanation could be more compact, but it is not bloated.

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 configuration tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral traps: one-time secret, default off for Telegram, read-only publish_through, kill-switch auto_approve, and rotate_secret side effects. It also references the sibling tools needed for the publish_through flow. Nothing essential 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context on top: it explains the default for telegram_enabled, the one-time secret return tied to rotate_secret, the read-only nature of publish_through, and the kill-switch semantics of auto_approve. It doesn't add syntax details for every parameter, but it clarifies the most behaviorally important ones.

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 and resource ('Set or update where and how this brand's daily content package is delivered'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delivery_replay and delivery_test. It also names related sibling tools (social_connect_link, social_accounts_list) and explains the mode distinction, so an agent can tell this is the configuration tool, not an action tool.

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 explains the default webhook-only behavior, when Telegram is enabled, when publish_through is available (only brand owner can grant it), and points to social_connect_link and social_accounts_list for the flow. It also warns about rotate_secret breaking verification. This is strong routing and usage context.

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