conversation_ai_update_followup_settings

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), so the description adds no new behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects, required authentication, rate limits, or what happens to existing settings. It merely repeats the verb 'Update' without any additional transparency, failing to complement the annotations.

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 extremely short, which might be seen as concise, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It does not earn its place as it adds no value beyond the tool name. The single phrase is front-loaded but lacks any substantive content, so it fails the 'every sentence earns its place' test.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 required params, nested object, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It provides no explanation of the tool's purpose, how the parameters relate, or what the expected behavior is. An agent has no information to correctly invoke this tool beyond the raw schema, which is also sparse.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters (agentId, actionIds, followupSettings), but it provides no information about them whatsoever. The nested followupSettings object has some descriptions in the schema, but the description itself offers no clarity on how these should be used or their meaning.

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 'Update Followup Settings' is essentially a restatement of the tool name, lacking any description of what followup settings are, what updating them entails, or how it differs from sibling tools like conversation_ai_update_action or conversation_ai_update_agent. It provides no specific verb+resource detail beyond the name, making it a borderline tautology.

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 contains no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the context (conversation AI, agent, actions) nor any prerequisites or conditions that would route an agent here over other update tools. There is no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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