Elect connectivity partner (CNP)

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that the body is free-form and lists error codes, but does not discuss side effects, idempotency, or reversibility beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 with error codes, concise and front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary words, though a bulleted list for errors could improve scanability.

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 no output schema, the description covers core usage, prerequisites (campaign ID), related tools, and error handling. It lacks details on response format but is adequate for an agent to select and invoke.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description reiterates that the body is free-form, adding minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 elects a Connectivity Partner (CNP) for a campaign, with a specific verb ('Elect') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing 'msg_list_dcas' for available partners and 'msg_get_sharing_status' for progress checks.

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 indicates when to use ('required before carriers will pass traffic'), suggests alternatives ('see msg_list_dcas'), and provides post-operation guidance ('Check election/sharing progress with msg_get_sharing_status'). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.

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