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

Beyond the annotations (write, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the material consequence that follow-ups reach real clients and that editor role is required, plus what each message_type does. This is genuine behavioral context an agent could not derive from the annotations alone.

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-loaded with the action and editable fields, followed by the enum semantics and the risk/auth caveats. Three sentences that each carry weight, 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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 50% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, the key enum, auth requirements, and the client-facing risk. Minor gaps remain (stop_on_reply, exact is_active behavior), but nothing essential to correct invocation 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 description coverage is only 50%, and the description compensates by mapping the informal phrases to parameters (text, pause before it, clock time, switch off) and fully explaining the message_type enum values (static/ai/ai_with_context), which the schema leaves bare. It only leaves stop_on_reply and is_active detail unaddressed.

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 ('Change one follow-up step') and enumerates the editable aspects (text, pause, clock time, switch off), which clearly separates it from the sibling dosai_add_followup_step. It stops short of naming that sibling, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Provides implied usage ('change one follow-up step', confirm text with the owner, editor role required) but never states when to pick this over add_followup_step or list_followup_steps. The agent can infer the edit-existing-step scenario, but there are no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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