setup_begin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuine side effect (enabling screening-only), which is better than nothing, but it omits idempotency, whether existing credentials or screening config are overwritten, required permissions, and what the caller receives back.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the primary action comes before the side effect. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the result of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

This is a state-mutating setup tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, so the description must do heavy lifting and does not. An agent knows roughly what happens but not the prerequisites, side effects on existing configuration, or expected result.

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 single parameter `profile` has 0% schema description coverage and a default of "default", yet the description never mentions it and gives no notion of what a profile selects. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and here it adds nothing beyond the schema.

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 names a concrete action and resource ("Create a credentials template") plus a secondary effect ("enable screening-only"), which separates it from siblings like import_credentials and setup_status. However, the key terms "screening-only" and "new setup" are never defined, so an agent cannot tell exactly what state is produced or whether this is the first step of a multi-tool workflow.

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?

There is no guidance on when this tool should be called versus get_setup_guide, setup_status, or import_credentials, and no indication that it must precede import_credentials. The phrase "for a new setup" hints at a precondition but never states it as a rule an agent can act on.

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