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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that re-running overwrites the existing script, that it costs 1 credit, and that it requires company data to be present. It does not explain error behavior if the prerequisite is unmet or what the return value is, but the main mutation and cost effects are transparent.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the output, the prerequisite, and the side effects with no wasted words. The main result is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, cost, overwrite behavior, and the two artifacts generated, which is solid context for a mutation tool. However, with no output schema and zero schema-level parameter descriptions, leaving id, purpose, and script_style unexplained means the context is not fully complete for a correct call.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain id, purpose, and script_style, but it does not. The title hints at sales/support/info and the schema enums are self-descriptive, yet nothing in the description maps parameters to outputs or explains what id refers to.

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 clearly states the tool generates the agent's sales script and email_script, which is a specific verb plus resource and distinguishes it from generate_agent_description. However, it only mentions the sales variant in the body while the title and schema include support and info purposes, leaving a minor ambiguity about whether purpose selects the script type.

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?

The description explicitly gives a prerequisite and a required sequence: company_name and company_description must already be set, and set_agent_company should be called first. It also warns about cost and overwrite behavior. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like generate_agent_description, so it misses full when-not-to-use guidance.

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