setup_infrastructure

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

The description transparently explains async behavior (returns jobId, poll infrastructure_status), billing details (per-mailbox costing, minimum 5, formula), and the quoteOnly preview. Annotations only provide destructiveHint: false, so the description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose. It covers billing, async behavior, and idempotency without redundancy. While lengthy, every sentence contributes value, making it appropriately concise for the complexity.

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?

Considering the tool's complexity (async, billing, many parameters), the description covers the main aspects: what it does, billing preview, async polling, idempotency. It lacks explicit detail on warmup or mailbox creation, but the response format is described. Overall, complete enough for agent invocation.

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?

Input schema has 9 parameters with only 11% description coverage. The description adds meaning by summarizing key inputs (brand, domains, inboxesEach) and explaining the role of quoteOnly and idempotencyKey. It doesn't detail every parameter, but compensates adequately for the low schema coverage.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Provision sending infrastructure: buy branded lookalike domains, create mailboxes, start warmup.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_dashboard or list_campaigns, which are about retrieval or management, not provisioning.

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 explicitly advises using quoteOnly:true to preview billing before committing, and mentions idempotencyKey for retries. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, the context makes it clear it's for initial setup or capacity addition. Sibling tools are sufficiently different.

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