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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the authentication requirement, that account access is needed, and that creating a config is not sufficient on its own—authorization must be requested before use. It doesn't describe return values or side effects, but the workflow and prerequisite context are strong.

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 description is organized into three clear paragraphs: core purpose, agent workflow, and access note. Every sentence adds operational value, the purpose is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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 the key contextual needs: prerequisites, authentication, sequencing with sibling tools, and channel-specific setup. It does not explain what the tool returns after creation, but there is no output schema and the steps needed to invoke it correctly are sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that channels are for approval requests, and specifically instructs how to obtain and include the Telegram chat_id via create_chat_id_discovery, which is not implied by the schema alone.

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 opens with 'Create a HITL config', a specific verb and resource, then clarifies the config's role: defining messaging channels and default timeout. This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like update_hitl, delete_hitl, get_hitl, and request_hitl_authorization.

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 'Agent usage' section explicitly tells the agent what to do before and after calling this tool: call request_hitl_authorization after creation and create_chat_id_discovery first for Telegram. It also states access requirements and that start_login does NOT open this tool, giving clear when-to-use and 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.