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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the permission requirement, the shop-wide blast radius, and the default state. It does not explicitly say whether the change applies only to future emails or affects already-queued ones, and reversibility is only implied by the on/off framing.

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 with the action front-loaded and the default state immediately after. The trailing clause explaining what the hub actually shows is slightly long but genuinely helps an agent understand the feature, so it earns its place.

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 two-parameter toggle with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers what changes, who can do it, and the default state. It stops short of specifying whether already-sent emails are affected, the one remaining gap an agent might care about.

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. It implicitly maps 'on or off' to the boolean `enabled` and 'the whole shop' to `shop_id`, but never documents these by name, nor mentions the UUID format. For two largely self-evident parameters this is adequate but not compensating fully.

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 (turn the customer hub link in quote and invoice emails on or off), its scope (for the whole shop), and its authorization constraint (owner only). The resource is narrow enough that an agent can distinguish it from neighbors such as shops_setReviewRequest or shops_setInvoiceReminders without opening the schema.

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 clear precondition (owner only) and the current default (on), which tells the agent when the call is relevant and what to expect without it. It does not name an alternative or say when to prefer a different tool, but no close sibling performs this toggle, so the omission is minor.

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