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

Beyond the annotations (which already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness), the description discloses the auth requirement (PUSHNOTIF_API_KEY), the credit cost (0), and the critical side-effect constraint that it does not overwrite the In-App Promo Banner. It also returns the response shape, all of which annotations alone cannot convey.

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 core purpose and the sibling exclusion are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information (auth, cost, return shape). The opening is a long, dense sentence with a nested parenthetical that could be split for readability, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, cost, non-destructive scoping relative to the banner, and the JSON return shape. There is no meaningful gap an agent would need to guess at before calling it.

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 would be 3; the description adds slight value by framing the three 'automated DOM/webhook sensors' that map to the sensor params and by enumerating the returned fields. It doesn't restate enums or defaults, but it doesn't need to given the rich schema.

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 (Configure) plus the exact resource (standalone Live Activity Social Proof Toast) and its three sensors, and even parenthesizes what the toast actually is. It explicitly separates itself from configure_inapp_banner, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any 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 explicit when-to-use cases (enable/disable toasts, change theme or corner, toggle auto-capture sensors) and an explicit when-not with a named alternative ('do not use it for promo popups (use configure_inapp_banner instead)'). Nothing is left to inference.

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