supportpages_set_telemetry

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

Annotations declare it is a non-destructive write with no open-world access; the description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the response reports what is sent plus current state, and environment variables (SUPPORTPAGES_TELEMETRY=0, DO_NOT_TRACK=1) can silently override the setting. That override caveat is exactly the kind of behavior an agent must know. It stops short of saying whether the setting persists across sessions.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the auth note, then the return/override caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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 one-boolean toggle with an output schema and annotations already present, this covers the action, the trigger, the auth requirement, the return content, and the environment-variable override. Nothing material is missing.

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 required boolean 'enabled' has no schema description (0% coverage), so the description must carry the load — and it does, explicitly framing the argument as 'on or off.' It never uses the parameter name 'enabled' or states a default, which keeps it from a 5.

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 verb pair (turn on/off), the exact resource (anonymous usage counts and crash reports), and the scope (this device). It is instantly distinguishable from every sibling, none of which touch telemetry.

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?

It gives a trigger condition ('when the user asks') and a prerequisite ('Needs no account'), which is more than most siblings offer. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling competes for this function, so the gap is minor.

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