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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), the description discloses a critical behavioral consequence: an empty pool means the workflow never dispatches LinkedIn actions, and at least one account is required before an enabled workflow can send. It also reveals a side-effect: syncing a linked signal agent's acting accounts. This is high-value operational context for an agent.

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 focused sentences: the first states the core operation, the second explains the crucial dispatch consequence and prerequisite, and the third routes to supporting tools. No filler or redundancy.

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 three-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the platform-specific behavior, the consequence of clearing, a precondition for enabled workflows, a side-effect, and guidance for obtaining the necessary IDs. Nothing essential to making the call correctly is missing.

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 descriptions already cover platform and accountIds, including empty-array behavior. The description adds further meaning by explaining the act/rotation pool concept, tying accountIds to LinkedIn dispatch, and directing the agent to list_accounts for valid IDs. workflowId has no schema description, but the name and context make its role self-evident.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Set (or clear) a workflow's act/rotation account pool for a platform.' It then clarifies what this means for LinkedIn dispatch behavior, making the tool's role distinct from generic workflow update tools. The naming of companion tools (list_accounts, get_workflow) further anchors its purpose.

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 provides clear context on when this tool is appropriate: whenever the workflow's account pool must be set or cleared, and explicitly points to campaignstack_list_accounts for IDs and campaignstack_get_workflow for inspection. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use this tool versus update_workflow, but the specialized wording makes the choice largely unambiguous.

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