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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false), and the description adds a real behavioral constraint those annotations cannot express: the operation requires explicit user approval before invocation. It does not describe reversibility (the messages_unbot sibling implies it) or the effect on downstream counts, but the approval gate is meaningful added context.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The action is stated first and the approval precondition is front-loaded immediately after, so the critical constraint cannot be missed.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the destructive/idempotent profile, the description supplies the one missing piece an agent must know: the human-approval precondition. Return behavior is unspecified, but no output schema exists and the caller mostly needs to know the operation succeeded, so this is minor.

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 100% for both parameters (logId Guid, messageIds array), so the schema already documents them fully. The description only restates 'by ID' and 'one or more,' which duplicates what the schema provides without adding format, batching, or failure semantics.

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 and resource: 'Mark one or more log messages as bot-generated by ID.' The action is unambiguous and its inverse (messages_unbot in the sibling list) is easy to disambiguate from the name, but the description never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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 a clear when-to-use condition ('only when the user has explicitly approved marking these specific messages') and an explicit when-not ('never speculatively while just investigating'). It stops short of routing to alternatives such as messages_unbot or messages_fix, but the gating condition is unusually concrete.

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