supportpages_setup_hosted

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

With annotations indicating a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and open-world interaction, the description adds rich behavioral detail: opens browser sign-in first, asks which help centre, requests device consent, opens connection/repair page, and explains the multi-call pattern returning resume_tool and resume_arguments. It also clarifies that it does not perform critical actions like approving consent or choosing a repository.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and follows a logical flow: setup steps, multi-call pattern, return values, and boundaries. It is appropriately sized for a complex orchestration tool, though the list of negatives at the end could be tightened slightly.

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 (multi-step, openWorld, mutation) and low schema coverage, the description provides a good process overview and boundary conditions. However, it leaves key parameters (action enum, workspace, article_id) unexplained, and the 'next_arguments' mismatch may mislead. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed.

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 description coverage is only 17%, so the description must compensate. It mentions project_id and resume_arguments in context, but fails to explain the required action enum values, workspace, article_id, or the nested resume_arguments fields. Additionally, it references 'next_arguments' (not in schema) instead of 'resume_arguments', causing potential confusion.

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 states a specific orchestration purpose: 'Sign in or create an account and connect a repository for the original requested hosted action.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating what it does NOT do (approve consent, choose repository, upload articles, start generation), which contrasts with tools like supportpages_connect_repository or supportpages_upload_draft.

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 clear when-to-use context: for the original requested hosted action, and after each user step call again with next_arguments. It also lists exclusions ('Never approves consent...'). However, it does not name specific alternative sibling tools for those excluded actions, leaving the agent to infer the replacement.

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