FleetQ

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It lists destructive actions like 'delete' and 'token_revoke' without noting permanence or side effects. No disclosure of rate limits, authentication requirements, or return value structures (e.g., what 'analytics' returns). The description essentially repeats action names without behavioral context.

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?

A single dense sentence with parenthetical lists. While concise in word count, the structure is poor—cramming 11 actions with parameters makes it hard to scan. It is front-loaded with the verb, but the parenthetical enumeration reduces readability for a 22-parameter tool.

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 complex multi-action tool with 22 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks action-specific descriptions, error handling notes, or explanations of relationships between actions (e.g., that token_create output feeds token_revoke). The high schema coverage mitigates this slightly, but conceptual completeness is low.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage but presents all 22 parameters as a flat list with a bloated required array. The description adds significant value by mapping specific parameters to actions (e.g., 'create (name, agent_id, config)', 'token_revoke (chatbot_id, token_id)'), helping clarify conditional parameter requirements that the schema structure obscures.

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 'Manage chatbot instances' (vague verb) followed by an enumerated list of actions. While the action list clarifies scope, it reads as mechanical documentation rather than a clear purpose statement. It distinguishes from siblings like agent_manage by targeting 'chatbots' specifically, but 'Manage' fails to convey the CRUD + operational nature distinctly.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (agent_manage, assistant_manage) or when to prefer specific actions like token_revoke versus token_create. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether chatbot_id comes from a prior list action) or workflow sequencing.

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