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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by explaining what enablement actually does (agent starts replying autonomously), that a wrong value takes effect immediately, that it is a partial update, and that an API key is required. 'Safe to repeat' largely restates idempotentHint but the rest is genuinely additive.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the action and field list, then the risk framing, then the operational note. Efficient overall, with minor redundancy in 'Safe to repeat' echoing the idempotentHint annotation.

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 6-parameter, no-required-fields mutation with a destructive annotation and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: partial-update semantics, immediate effect, autonomy implications, and auth requirement. It does not describe error behavior, but nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so ranges, defaults, and clear-on-null semantics are already documented per field. The description provides interpretation of intent (confidence threshold = how sure before acting, reply limits = cap on sends) but no syntax or format detail beyond the 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 concrete verb and resource (change the AI sales agent's settings) and enumerates the mutable surface — enabled, booking link, offer price, reply limits, confidence threshold. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the read sibling by instructing 'Read the current config first', so an agent can tell it apart from get_sales_agent_config.

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 clear operating context: read current config first, only passed fields change, and the effect is immediate. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool (get_sales_agent_config) or stating when-not to use this tool.

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