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

Annotations only cover safety (readOnly false, idempotent true, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot convey: the script queues in the inbox until the user imports it, the app cannot read/search/list scripts, nothing about the script returns to this context, and the reply only confirms delivery. This is exactly the extra context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition and organized around the text-vs-file split, with zero wasted framing sentences. Slightly long due to the exactness instructions being stated in both the description and the text schema, but every sentence carries a rule the agent must follow.

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 delivery-only tool with an output schema already documenting the confirmation response, the description covers the missing pieces: no reading/searching, no return of script content, inbox-queue semantics, and the attachment-vs-paste decision. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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, but the description goes further by explaining the routing decision between 'text' and 'files' (pasted text vs attachments, one file or up to 20 page-order photos) and the exactness constraint in each. It adds real disambiguation value over the schema descriptions, though it repeats the schema's 'without summarizing/fixing/reformatting' wording rather than extending it.

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 states a specific action (send/save/import a script into the user's blablabla account) and the exact resource (the user's own pasted or attached script). It also names a sibling alternative (call get_blablabla_upload_link otherwise), so an agent can distinguish it from the inbox/upload-link tools without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit triggers ('when the user asks to send, save or import a script'), explicit negative cases ('never use it for files that are not the user's own script, never invent a file or text'), and a named alternative path when attachments arrive as links rather than files. When-to-use, when-not, and alternatives are all present.

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