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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'update' is consistent. However, the description does not add extra context about side effects (e.g., token invalidation, propagation delays, or confirmation requirements). Given the annotations, the bar is lower, but no additional transparency is provided.

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 a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the verb and directly states the object and attributes, making it easy to parse and act upon.

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 simple flag-update mutation, the description covers the core action and most parameters. However, the missing explanation of fb_user_label and lack of any note about required fields or expected output leave some gaps, though the tool's basic purpose is clear.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description explains the three boolean flags but omits fb_user_label, which is the target user identifier. This leaves a critical parameter ambiguous and fails to fully compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('update') and the target ('one FB user's flags') and enumerates the specific flags (allow_create, allow_pull, allow_decision). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fb_users_update_label and fb_users_bind_token by specifying exactly which attributes are modified.

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 implies when to use the tool (to change user permission flags) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or provide conditions or prerequisites. It is adequate but lacks explicit usage guidance beyond the basic imperative.

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