Create a communication plan

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds value by stating 'may notify recipients or change tenant data' and the confirmation requirement. It does not contradict annotations and provides context on side effects beyond the flags. No coverage of topics like idempotency or rate limits, but annotations cover idempotency hint.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It packs endpoint, body fields, a reference, and requirements into two sentences without excessive verbosity. Slight clutter from the HTTPS link, but it earns its place as an authoritative reference.

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 a mutation tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: side effects, prerequisites, and field hints. It doesn't explain return values, but the absence of an output schema lowers that burden. The reference link and endpoint provide further context. Minor gaps like optional field meanings are not critical for 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?

The schema's body description is generic ('Complete API JSON payload'), so the description compensates by listing specific fields (name, description, enabled, accessibleByAll, position). This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only requires name and enabled. The confirm parameter semantics are also clarified in the schema, so the description's mention reinforces it.

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 a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a communication plan'), and includes the HTTP method and endpoint. It distinguishes this from siblings by naming the action explicitly (create vs. get, modify, delete). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 specifies the action clearly and lists prerequisites (operator write opt-in, confirm:true), which implies when to use it (to create). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the create/resource pairing is obvious within the sibling set. Slight lack of explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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