FleetQ

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

Annotations are empty, so description carries full disclosure burden. It names destructive actions ('delete') and mutation actions ('save') but doesn't disclose side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or what 'test' actually validates. No behavioral context beyond action names.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first defines scope and channels, second maps actions to parameters. Appropriately front-loaded with concrete delimiters. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Complex CRUD tool with 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations. Description covers action names but omits return value structure, error behaviors, or success indicators. Given the mutation risk (delete/save) and lack of output schema, significantly incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds valuable action-parameter mapping (e.g., 'save (channel, config)', 'delete (connector_id)') that clarifies which parameters are used for which operations, exceeding schema documentation despite minor terminology mismatch ('config' vs schema's 'credentials').

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 specific verb+resource ('Manage outbound delivery connectors') and enumerates supported channels (email, Slack, Telegram, webhook) and actions. Deducted one point because it doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'email_manage' or 'webhook_manage' which appear to overlap functionally.

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?

Lists available actions (list, get, save, delete, test) but provides no guidance on when to use this general connector tool versus specific siblings like 'email_manage' or 'webhook_manage'. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned.

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