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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'Sends nothing' clarifies this is a non-delivering preview, and the description discloses an authorization-status result that drives downstream behavior. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so this extra flow information is a meaningful increment.

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 sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose and the critical 'Sends nothing' qualifier before the conditional flow. Efficient and easy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description adequately covers the prepare/confirm lifecycle and the authorization branching. The main remaining gap is the absence of any parameter-level detail, particularly for requestId.

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 0% and the description supplies essentially no per-parameter meaning. 'Exact private message' weakly maps to text and 'existing conversation' to conversationId, but requestId (an idempotency-style key) is entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving a required parameter undocumented.

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+resource ('Prepare an exact private message for an existing conversation') and immediately signals the preview nature with 'Sends nothing'. The confirm step it references implies the sibling fitmeet_message_confirm, but it never names it explicitly, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Clearly lays out the two-branch workflow: confirm directly when the result reports AUTOMATIC authorization, otherwise surface recipient and full text and request confirmation. That is actionable when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly name the sibling confirm tool or state when NOT to use this prepare step.

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