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

Far exceeds the annotations (which only cover read/write/idempotency/openWorld). It discloses billing (30 cents, charged only on success, must warn the owner first), latency (up to a minute), auth requirements (admin or owner role), and the replacement/recoverability behavior. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then adds cost, replacement semantics, latency, and role in separate clauses. It is dense but each sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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 6-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, latency, permissions, and the replace-with-history behavior, which are the operational facts an agent needs. Nothing material is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping the parameters into a conversational elicitation flow (about = business, faq = client questions, goals = bot objective), which helps the agent gather the right inputs rather than just fill fields.

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 and resource: 'Write the bot's system prompt from the owner's own words.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like dosai_update_prompt and dosai_add_knowledge_text by identifying itself as 'the same builder as the cabinet button' and clarifying it REPLACES the current description. An agent can select it without ambiguity.

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?

Gives clear context: ask the owner three things first, and it replaces the description (old one preserved in history). It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tools (e.g. dosai_update_prompt) or stating when-not to use it, so it lacks true exclusion guidance.

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