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

Despite annotations indicating a mutating non-destructive operation, the description adds significant behavioral context: trigger auto-enrolls contacts, exit_when is re-checked before every send, and first step with wait_days:0 sends immediately. It also explains enroll_existing side effects, going well beyond the 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 compact and information-dense, covering purpose, key parameters, and an example in just three sentences. Every sentence contributes meaning without fluff.

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 complexity of creating a drip sequence, the description covers core behavior, side effects, and provides a concrete example. It does not detail return values, but no output schema exists and it's a create operation, so that's not a gap. The main logic is thoroughly explained.

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 compensates by explaining the structures of trigger, exit_when, steps, and enroll_existing, including nested fields like {field,op,value} and {wait_days,subject,body}. However, it leaves channel, enabled, and connection unexplained, so not all parameters are covered.

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 'Create a multi-step drip sequence,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_automation or create_template by emphasizing 'multi-step drip' and detailing the sequence components.

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 provides a concrete example use case ('3 emails to contacts of deals entering stage lead...') that illustrates when to apply the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as for single-step automations.

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