Import a testimonial

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating/non-idempotent nature is covered. The description adds the useful prerequisite that an authorized statement and explicit approval are required, but says nothing about side effects, rate limits, or auth beyond that.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action and the approval precondition front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity is under-specification rather than deliberate economy given the tool's complexity.

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 25-parameter creation tool with nested payload objects, dual input modes, and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It omits required-field guidance (0 required params is ambiguous), how payload and confirm interact, and what the operation returns.

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?

With 25 parameters and only 44% schema description coverage, the description carries a heavy compensation burden, yet it only alludes to the text/video 'type' and the customer statement. It explains nothing about the payload vs payload_file vs flat body-flag modes, confirm, account, integration, or the customer_* fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create one text/video testimonial') and adds a scope qualifier ('one', from an authorized existing customer statement) that implicitly distinguishes it from the batch siblings. It does not name an alternative tool, but the single-item scope is clear.

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?

Gives a precondition ('from an authorized existing customer statement') and 'explicit approval is required', which implies the confirm/approved flags. However, it never names when to use this versus preview_testimonial_batch, submit_testimonial_batch, or update_testimonial, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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