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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: it fails with 422 BOT_NOT_INITIALIZED on clean API/B2B-created apps. It also clarifies the legacy-only applicability, which helps an agent anticipate failure modes. The idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations are not contradicted; the description adds useful error 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a necessary error/alternative note and a validity statement. Each sentence contributes information an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool. It is slightly dense but not bloated.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical decision factors: what it operates on, which auth modes are valid, when it will fail, and what alternatives to use. It does not describe the success response or side effects beyond 'enable', but the annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness. Overall it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 both appId and trigger are already documented in the schema. The description mentions auth modes (app-token or B2B) that contextualize appId, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 and resource: 'Enable the LEGACY per-app aiBot using app-token or B2B auth.' It also distinguishes itself from the broader bot/B2B toolset by emphasizing 'legacy' and 'per-app' scope. This clearly separates it from siblings like ethora-b2b-bot-enable and ethora-agents-create-v2.

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 explicitly tells when not to use the tool: clean API/B2B-created apps have no legacy aiBot, so they would get a 422 BOT_NOT_INITIALIZED. It names concrete alternatives (ethora-agents-create-v2 + ethora-agent-invite-to-chat, or ethora-b2b-app-bootstrap-ai) and states the valid use case: apps that already have a legacy aiBot. This is explicit when/when-not guidance.

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