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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this does not connect anything and that the operation is free, but omits permissions, reversibility, and whether omitted flags are left unchanged.

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 with zero waste; the legacy flag scope is front-loaded and the connection exclusion follows immediately.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and partial schema coverage, the description adds useful context about legacy status and non-connection behavior. It still leaves gaps around permissions, reversibility, and the effect of omitted booleans.

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 low at 25% (only id is documented in the schema). The description names the three boolean flags and frames them as legacy, which partially compensates, but adds no further semantic detail about the flags or the id.

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?

Names the resource (agent) and the exact legacy flags, and explicitly distinguishes them from channel connections managed by connection tools. The description lacks an explicit verb, but the title supplies 'Set' and the scope is still clear.

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?

Provides an exclusion: channels are managed with connection tools and this does not connect anything. However, it gives no positive trigger for using legacy flags versus update_agent or set_agent_contact_channels.

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