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

Despite minimal annotations (no readOnly, no destructive hints), the description enumerates all possible actions (more, less, mute, follow, etc.) and clearly states the effect is on 'future briefings'. It does not describe side effects like irreversibility of mute, but the action list itself provides transparency. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences total: the first states the tool's purpose and lists possible actions, the second provides usage guidance. No redundant or filler content. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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 has two parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers what the tool does and when to use it. It does not explain what the return value looks like (e.g., confirmation or error), but the absence of an output schema lowers the expectation. The description is adequate for correct agent selection and invocation.

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% (both parameters documented). The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that 'topic' should be 'as it appears in get_information_diet or in a briefing entry' and by listing the action categories in prose (e.g., 'more or less of it, more or less technical'), which gives context to the enum values.

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 verb 'tune' and the resource 'a single topic' with the specific purpose of adjusting how it is treated in future briefings. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'correct_briefing' by contrasting 'precise instrument' vs 'vague comment', making the tool's unique role obvious.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'for a vague comment like "too much crypto lately" use correct_briefing instead'. This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus an alternative, and the opening sentence implies it is for precise, granular adjustments.

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