api_operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: reads execute immediately while other changes require review and chat confirmation before execution, clarifying the approval workflow this tool participates in.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler, and the core discovery statement is front-loaded ahead of the workflow notes. Slightly opaque phrasing ('observed native draft endpoints') costs it a point.

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 tool whose behavior hinges on an unexplained 'mode' enum and a 'group' filter, with no output schema and no parameter documentation anywhere, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% for two parameters, and the description mentions neither 'mode' (enum read/approval/special) nor 'group'. The 'mode' enum in particular is central to behavior and is left entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb 'Discover' plus 'reviewed Morning operations: published API plus observed native draft endpoints' gives a rough sense that this lists/retrieves operations, but 'Morning' is undefined jargon and 'discover' is ambiguous (list? describe? enumerate?). It does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings like api_operation_schema or read_morning.

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?

It hints at a workflow ('Reads run immediately; saved editable drafts have a dedicated immediate tool; other changes must be reviewed and confirmed in chat'), which is useful routing context. However, it never names the 'dedicated immediate tool' and gives no explicit when-to-use guidance against the many sibling tools.

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