direct_add_callouts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only indicates 'WRITE' and 'allow_write=true', but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether callouts are appended/overwritten, reversibility, or live cabinet impact). The dry_run parameter is not explained in the description, and no return behavior is mentioned.

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 very concise, with the 'WRITE:' prefix front-loading the action and constraints. It is a single sentence with no redundant words, though the UI/EPK phrase is somewhat vague. Overall, it is efficient.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is extremely sparse. It omits critical context like dry_run behavior, what the response looks like, and how this differs from direct_attach_callouts. The description is inadequate for safe and effective invocation.

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 only 33% (only allow_write has a description). The description repeats the maxLength constraint for callouts (already in schema) and mentions allow_write=true, but does not explain dry_run at all. It adds little meaning beyond what the schema already provides, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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's action ('WRITE') and resource ('adextensions callouts'), with the constraint of ≤25 chars. It distinguishes from list tools but does not explicitly differentiate from direct_attach_callouts, which is a close sibling.

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 only hints at UI/EPK limitations ('Attach via UI/EPK may be limited') but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like direct_attach_callouts. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or exclusion criteria.

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