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

Adds specific behavioral context beyond annotations: ephemeral Redis storage with a 15-min TTL, single-use GETDEL, no persistence to Postgres or logs, and an ignored compatibility parameter. This is more than the bare destructive/read-only hints provide.

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 sentences with no filler: front-loaded purpose, then storage/security behavior, then parameter compatibility note. Each sentence adds necessary information.

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 what, when, and important lifecycle/security behavior, and an output schema exists to cover return values. It is slightly incomplete on the exact credentials format expected in fields, preventing a 5.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies remember_for_session is accepted for compat and ignored, but does not explain the expected structure of fields or how ticket_id relates to the action ticket beyond the name.

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?

States a specific verb ('Submit'), resource ('credentials for an action ticket'), and the triggering condition ('blocked with creds_required'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like actionlayer_reply or actionlayer_resume_job.

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 gives a clear usage condition: submit when an action ticket is blocked with creds_required. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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