FleetQ

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

With empty annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden but discloses nothing about side effects, irreversibility of social_unlink, password validation rules, or authentication requirements for sensitive mutations.

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 compact but poorly structured as a dense run-on sentence listing actions. While not verbose, the parenthetical parameter groupings are hard to parse and could benefit from clearer separation or formatting.

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 multi-action tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It names actions but omits return value descriptions (e.g., what 2fa_status returns), pagination behavior for social_list/connected_accounts, and error conditions.

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?

Despite low schema coverage (29%), the description adds critical semantic value by mapping parameters to specific actions—grouping (name, email) with 'update' and password fields with 'password_update'—clarifying which parameters are relevant for which operation.

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 identifies the resource ('user profile and account') and lists specific supported actions. Given sibling tools like admin_manage, credential_manage, and system_manage, specifying 'user profile' provides adequate differentiation.

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 lists available actions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., credential_manage for passwords, admin_manage for account settings) or prerequisites for sensitive operations like password_update.

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