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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, but add no detail. The description supplies the crucial 'without publishing' distinction, the specific 403/409 failure modes, the fact that errors carry a dashboard link, and the agent-facing instruction to relay it since OAuth can't run via API. That is substantive context well beyond the annotation flags.

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 purpose, then the sibling alternative, then error semantics — a logical order with no filler. It is somewhat dense and compresses the failure handling into em-dash clauses, but every clause carries usable information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Given that, the description covers purpose, scope, the sibling boundary, and both failure paths with the required agent behavior — nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the `id` and `context` parameters are already fully documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only an indirect hint about `id` (it points at 'the signature's current content') and nothing about the analytics `context` field beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Trigger installation') plus the exact resource and scope ('a signature template's current `content` to connected mail clients... on every email it is assigned to'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling install_signature_for_email by scope, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 the when-to-use condition and names the alternative plus the condition that selects it ('for one email alone, use install_signature_for_email'). It also tells the agent what to do on failure (relay the dashboard link to the user because the API can't run OAuth).

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