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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the tool's behavior as a dispatcher to other tools and flags its deprecation. This is sufficient for a shim, but it doesn't detail what happens with unknown operation values or any potential side effects.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the deprecation warning, and every word adds value. It avoids padding and delivers the critical directive immediately.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description covers deprecation and alternatives, but it omits operational details about how the operation parameter maps to the dispatched tools. Given the schema has no parameter descriptions, this leaves a gap for an agent that might still need to invoke the shim correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'operation' or 'style_guide_id' parameters beyond implying dispatch behavior. It does not clarify valid operation values (e.g., get, export, import) or the meaning of style_guide_id, leaving the agent to rely on the schema's default and names.

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 clearly states the tool is a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to the single-verb tools (workiva_get_style_guide, workiva_export_style_guide, workiva_import_style_guide). It identifies its role and distinguishes itself from the recommended siblings, though it lacks a direct verb+resource phrasing.

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 instructs the agent to use the three alternative tools instead, providing immediate, unambiguous guidance on when not to use this tool and which tools to prefer. This is a clear exclusion of alternatives.

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