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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds valuable context beyond them: it discloses that moving a rule to Facebook clears Instagram-only fields, that enabled rules reply automatically, and the return shape. The idempotency_key retry semantics are described, though they slightly conflict with idempotentHint=false (retry-safety is an idempotency-like guarantee).

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 tight sentences that front-load the core action, then add critical side-effect and retry information. No wasted words; every clause is actionable.

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 16-param mutation tool with no output schema and only 25% schema coverage, the description does a good job of covering the critical fields and side effects. It could go further in explaining the full parameter space or the exact return value, but the essentials are present.

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 only 25%, so the description compensates by naming the updatable fields (message, trigger, connected account, guardrails, enabled). It also implicitly explains idempotency_key behavior and that platform changes cause field clearing. The full 16-param schema is not fully covered, but the description adds meaningful semantic guidance.

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 ('Update an inbox automatic reply rule by id') and enumerates the overwritable fields. It names the sibling create/delete counterparts implicitly and 'by id' makes it clear this is a modification of an existing rule, not creation.

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 makes clear this is a full overwrite of the supplied settings, which implies when to use it versus create. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like aidelly_create_inbox_automation or aidelly_get_inbox_automations, nor does it state when-not to use it.

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