yax_monitor_churn_risk

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by stating that it drafts emails and returns a prioritized risk list. With annotations providing baseline, the description effectively discloses the key side effect of draft creation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds meaningful context.

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 has an output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description covers the core functionality well. It could mention defaults for risk_threshold and draft_emails, but those are already in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only summarizes the output, not input parameters.

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 clearly states the tool flags churn risk and drafts re-engagement emails, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like yax_build_email_sequence by combining risk monitoring and email drafting in one action.

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 implies usage for churn monitoring and re-engagement outreach, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., yax_build_email_sequence or yax_score_leads). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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