Enable Legacy Bot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond that by disclosing the 422 BOT_NOT_INITIALIZED failure mode and the legacy-only prerequisite, which are critical for an agent to predict behavior before calling.

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 then provides error/alternative context. It is somewhat lengthy and slightly repetitive ('Valid for apps...' and 'Requires: an app...'), but each sentence carries useful information.

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 two-parameter, fully schema-documented tool with annotations, the description is complete: it covers prerequisites, failure modes, auth modes, and alternatives. An agent can decide whether to call this tool and how to interpret a likely error without additional context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds auth-mode context and the legacy-app requirement, but it does not elaborate on appId or trigger semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Enable the LEGACY per-app aiBot'), names the resource, and clarifies the scope via auth modes. It also differentiates itself from the Agents API alternative by naming the exact conditions under which that alternative applies.

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 says when the tool works ('apps that already have a legacy aiBot'), when it fails with 422 BOT_NOT_INITIALIZED, and which alternative tools to use instead (ethora-agents-create-v2, ethora-agent-invite-to-chat, ethora-agents-activate-v2, ethora-b2b-app-bootstrap-ai). This is strong routing guidance.

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