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

Annotations indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the legacy status, the auto-provision change, and the 422 BOT_NOT_INITIALIZED failure mode. It doesn't contradict annotations, and it goes beyond the structured data by explaining when the operation will fail.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains the error, the alternatives, and the valid use case. It's slightly dense but every sentence carries information; no 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational details: when to use, when not to use, the failure mode, and the forward path. It doesn't discuss the effect of omitting botTrigger, but the schema covers that.

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 (appId and botTrigger), each with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action (enable a legacy per-app aiBot) with clear scope (B2B auth) and distinguishes it from the forward path (Agents API). It explicitly names alternative tools, making differentiation unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: valid only for apps with a pre-existing legacy aiBot, and names the forward-path alternatives (ethora-b2b-app-bootstrap-ai or ethora-agents-create-v2 + ethora-agent-invite-to-chat). It also warns about the 422 error on clean apps, leaving no inference.

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