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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: owner-only access, generates drafts only, does not send, and specific request content. Does not mention side effects like overwriting existing drafts, but for a 0-parameter tool, this is sufficient.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences cover purpose, condition, content, exclusions, and follow-up action. No filler, front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: target sponsors, draft content, what not to expect, and next steps. References sibling tool for recording consent, providing complete workflow context.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter info as the schema is already complete and empty.

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?

Description clearly states the tool generates draft emails for logo permission requests from sponsors without consent. It specifies the request content (written permission and vector logo) and distinguishes itself by being owner-only and not a sending tool.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: for sponsors whose consent is not 'yes'. Provides after-action guidance to use mu_gi_logo_set to record permission. Also clarifies it does not send emails, setting expectations correctly. Could be improved by mentioning when not to use, but still effective.

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