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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the major effects: all texts and AI calls from the shop stop and consent is revoked. It omits reversibility, permission requirements, and idempotency, but the core behavioral impact is clearly stated.

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 action and followed by the effect and a usage example. Every clause adds useful information with no wasted text.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. For a sensitive mutation tool, the description covers the core effect and a triggering scenario well, but it lacks parameter detail and guidance on reversal or related consent-checking tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies a phone number and shop context but says nothing about the note parameter, formats, or required interactions, leaving the schema to carry semantics it does not actually document.

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 action and resource: putting a customer's phone number on the shop's stop list. The added detail that it stops all texts and AI calls and revokes consent makes the effect clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from related siblings such as phone_consents or phone_sendText, leaving some differentiation implicit.

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 a concrete usage scenario (customer verbally asks not to be texted or called), which helps an agent know when to call it. It does not name alternatives, exclusions, or how to reverse the action, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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