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

Annotations declare the mutation/no-open-world/non-destructive profile, and the description usefully layers on auth requirements (SULVO_API_KEY with inventory:write scope, never an argument), how the key is minted, and a hard precondition that the account must be approved or the backend rejects the call. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about idempotency or duplicate-creation behavior.

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 is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by prerequisites and the return value in a logical order with no filler. The dashboard key-minting detail is slightly procedural and human-oriented, keeping it just short of maximally tight.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the key missing pieces: auth, the approval precondition, and what is returned (unit id and container root). It is close to complete, with only the sibling-distinction and idempotency gaps remaining.

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 86%, so the schema already carries parameter meaning, including the size/type interaction and default outputFormat. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ('Create a Sulvo ad unit') plus a scope qualifier ('for an approved publisher'), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this generic ad-unit creator from overlapping siblings like create_sulvo_auto_sticky_units and create_sulvo_interstitial_units, leaving the agent to guess when this one applies.

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 real prerequisites (write-scoped key, approved account), which implies the context in which the tool works, but never says when to prefer this over the specialized sibling creators. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing, so usage is only implied.

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