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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing real-world consequences: disabling silently stops delivery on live campaigns/autopilot runs, enabling without credentials will not work, the operation is safely repeatable, and an API key is required. This is exactly the kind of operational context models need for a destructive, side-effecting mutation.

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 imperative sentence, then consequences, then prerequisite, then constraints. Every sentence adds distinct information and none is filler.

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 2-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, idempotency, credential caveats, and auth requirements. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 coverage is 100% with an enum on 'channel', so the schema already documents both parameters (baseline 3). The description adds a meaningful constraint beyond the schema ('Handles one channel per call'), which reduces ambiguity about batched calls.

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 ('turn on or off') and resource ('one outreach channel'), and enumerates the exact channels (WhatsApp, SMS, push). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_channels_status or send_to_campaign without opening the 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?

Explicitly names a prerequisite step ('Call get_channels_status first to see where things stand') and the one-channel-per-call constraint. It stops short of stating when-not to use the tool versus alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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