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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), destructiveHint=false and non-idempotent, and the description is consistent with them ('reversible'). It adds genuinely non-schema behavior: bounded batches, one result per requested item, and partial-failure reporting rather than all-or-nothing success. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or what a paused watch does to in-flight signals.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation set, then the routing exclusion, then return semantics. Four dense sentences with no filler, though the return/partial-failure sentence could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, yet the description still flags per-item results and partial failures—important for a batch tool. Combined with the sibling routing and reversibility note, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly for a multi-mode, nested-union schema.

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%, so the description has to compensate—and it does by mapping its prose operations onto the union schema's modes (create, set_status via pause/resume, set_accounts via LinkedIn account assignment). It does not clarify workspaceId scoping or the sendAccountIds vs linkedinAccountIds duality, which the schema itself covers.

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+resource (edit competitor watches) and enumerates the concrete operations: create, pause/resume, assign LinkedIn observer accounts. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (campaignstack_delete_competitor_watch), so an agent can route correctly without opening another schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when ('call this for reversible competitor watch changes') and an explicit when-not with the alternative tool named for the non-reversible case (deletion). This is the strongest form of routing guidance.

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