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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write. The description adds real context beyond that: a PRO/Growth plan prerequisite, a ~6,000-character payload ceiling, and a mandatory human-approval protocol driving the confirmed flag. It stops short of saying what happens when the limit is exceeded or on duplicate creation, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, then constraints and the approval workflow follow in the order an agent needs them. Dense but every sentence carries information; the semicolon-chained clauses make it slightly harder to scan than a fully structured version.

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 6-required-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operational essentials: plan gating, size limits, and the approval gate that governs confirmed. The remaining weakness is underspecified field semantics (notably isEnabled nullability and the title/agentId relationship).

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 only 17% — effectively just the confirmed field, which the description merely restates. It does add meaning for scenario ('step-by-step guide the receptionist follows') and whenToUse ('when it applies'), but title, agentId, and especially the nullable isEnabled semantics (what null means versus false) are left entirely to the schema.

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 (Create) and resource (one Call Scenario / Skill on a receptionist) and immediately defines the content of the object: when it applies plus a step-by-step guide. That clearly separates it from call_scenarios_update, call_scenarios_delete, and call_scenarios_reorder without opening any 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 explicit sequencing and gating: check plan tier, call listCallScenarios first, show the exact change, wait for explicit approval, then set confirmed=true. It also tells the agent to keep one scenario focused and split unrelated flows, which is genuine usage guidance rather than restated purpose.

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