FleetQ

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. It fails to mention that 'email_reply' sends emails, that 'connector_binding_delete' is permanent, or explain the side effects of contact merge (destructive deletion mentioned only in schema parameter description).

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 a single dense sentence with parenthetical parameter lists. While not verbose, it is poorly structured for readability—cramming eight complex operations into one line makes it hard to parse distinct actions and their requirements.

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?

Given the high complexity (21 parameters, 8 distinct actions, polymorphic design with required parameter array that appears overly broad) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It should clarify parameter relationships (which fields required for which actions) and explain the action-based routing pattern.

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 a baseline of 3. The description maps actions to key parameters (e.g., 'list (status, source filter)'), which provides a quick reference, but uses informal labels ('status' vs schema's 'status_filter') and adds no semantic depth beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., no explanation of payload structure).

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 the tool manages 'inbound signals' and enumerates eight specific actions (list, get, ingest, etc.), which provides some clarity. However, 'manage' is vague, and it fails to distinguish from the sibling 'signal_connectors' tool or explain what 'signals' represent in this domain (messages, alerts, etc.).

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 guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'signal_connectors' or 'email_manage'. There is no explanation of workflows (e.g., that one might list signals before replying) or prerequisites for specific actions.

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