Create a keyword automation

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real value on top by disclosing that DMs reach real people (a social/irreversible side effect), and by naming two concrete failure modes: 409 on duplicate keyword for the same posts and keyword_limit_exceeded when the plan has no free active-keyword slot. Missing are what gets returned on success and any permission/scope requirements, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Three sentences: what it does, the caution about real recipients, then failure modes — front-loaded and ordered by what the agent needs first. No restatement of the title and no filler.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side-effect caution, and error paths, which is most of what's needed. It stops short of saying what the successful call returns (presumably the created keyword with an id) or noting that the new keyword counts against the plan limit, which an agent creating keywords in bulk would want to know.

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 100% and every one of the 11 parameters is documented in detail in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds a passing reference to the optional public reply, offering essentially no parameter meaning beyond structured data — 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?

States a specific verb and resource (create a comment-to-DM automation) and goes further to explain the actual mechanism: a comment triggers the keyword and CommentKeyword sends the DM, optionally with a public reply. That mechanism makes it unambiguously distinct from the list/get/update/delete_keyword siblings without naming them.

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?

Gives a clear precondition for use — confirm details with the user first, because it messages real people — which is genuinely actionable guidance for an agent. It does not explicitly contrast with update_keyword (e.g. 'use this only for new keywords; to change an existing one use update_keyword'), so the when-not case is left to inference.

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