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

Annotations already indicate it's a mutation (readOnlyHint false), idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the ownership-state constraint (unclaimed vs claimed) and the API-key caution, which goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the operational 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 three concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action, then adds the usage condition and the API-key warning, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 and moderate parameter complexity, the description covers the primary use case, the ownership condition, and authentication guidance. It does not describe failure modes or exact response, but these are not critical given the annotations and schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context 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 coverage is 60%, with descriptions for api_key, objective, and salesperson_id. The description adds meaning by mapping the three editable fields (name, greeting, objective) to the tool's purpose and reinforces the api_key guidance. It compensates for the missing descriptions on name and greeting by clarifying their roles.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Change' and the resource (salesperson) plus the specific attributes (name, opening line, goal). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_website_salesperson (creates) and get_* tools (read-only) by focusing on modifying an existing salesperson.

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?

It gives a clear conditional: use when the salesperson is unclaimed, and explicitly says not to use it after the owner has claimed it, directing changes to HeySale. It also warns against asking for an API key, providing strong guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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