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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive update, and the description goes well beyond that: partial-update semantics ('only fields you pass are changed'), null-clears-nullable-field behavior, the exact scope of the daily loop switch ('does not stop scheduled posts'), vacation-mode semantics, the Pro-only gate on caption_tag_hidden, and the side effect that notification_email becomes the sign-in email for Instagram-first accounts. These are precisely the traits annotations cannot express.

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?

The field inventory is front-loaded and each clause carries information, with the critical safety rule about notification_email framed as a prohibition. It is a single dense paragraph that reads as a wall of text rather than being chunked, which costs a point, but there is little genuine filler to cut.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only 50% schema coverage, the description supplies the missing semantics, the merge/patch contract, the null-clear rule, permission and ownership restrictions, and tier gating. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without guessing.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates thoroughly, assigning meaning to nearly every undocumented field: notification_email, timezone, automation_enabled (the daily loop = daily drafts + approval email), schedule_paused, default_publish_time (HH:mm), whatsapp_notify_enabled/whatsapp_to_e164, and caption_tag_hidden. It adds semantics the bare schema lacks, especially for the boolean flags that carry no schema description at all.

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 opening noun phrase 'Tenant automation settings' plus the enumerated fields makes it unambiguous that this tool mutates tenant-level automation configuration (email recipient, timezone, daily loop, vacation mode, publish time, WhatsApp, caption tag). It is clearly distinguishable from adjacent siblings like edit_schedule, set_flow, and set_day_note, which govern per-item scheduling or notes rather than account-wide automation.

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 strong conditional guidance: 'schedule_paused ... only when the owner asks', 'notification_email must be an address the user gave you — never one you guessed or looked up', and 'only fields you pass are changed'. That is real when-to-use and precondition information. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., when to prefer edit_schedule over changing default publish time), so it is not a full 5.

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