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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true; the description earns credit by adding that the action cannot be undone and that it emails real people, plus the default/custom template distinction. It stops short of describing delivery failure behavior or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the write/irreversible nature, then the mode and endpoint. Nothing wasted.

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 7-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mode selection and irreversibility adequately. Return-value expectations are unspecified, which is the only notable gap.

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%, including the strong confirm=true note and the hash_key vs numeric-id warning, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's 'default template, or custom' adds only marginal framing on top.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('email an estimate to the client') with the default-vs-custom mode spelled out, and the endpoint reference anchors it. An agent can distinguish it from hiveage_send_invoice purely by resource name.

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 default-template-or-custom framing implies when each mode applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus hiveage_send_invoice, or on prerequisites beyond what the schema's confirm parameter enforces. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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