Submit an authorized text testimonial

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it separates local command approval ('confirm') from actual public-use permission ('customer_consent'/'payload.confirm'), a non-obvious dual-consent model. It does not describe reversibility or side effects of the destructive write, keeping it short of a 5.

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 no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the consent clarification. Minor jargon ('Local confirm approves the API call') slightly reduces immediate clarity but wastes no space.

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 14-parameter, nested-object, no-output-schema write tool, the description covers the most confusing aspect (dual consent) but omits the mutual-exclusivity constraints between payload, payload_file, and top-level fields, and says nothing about the result of a successful submission. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 14 parameters and 71% schema description coverage, the schema carries most of the load, so baseline 3 applies. The description clarifies the confirm/customer_consent distinction, but this is largely restated from the schema's own parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Independent from local command approval'), and it says nothing about the payload vs. payload_file vs. top-level field paths.

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 a concrete verb and resource ('Import a real authorized customer statement'), which clearly maps to submitting a text testimonial. However, it never distinguishes this tool from close siblings like submit_video_testimonial, submit_testimonial_batch, or send_testimonial_request, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 explains consent semantics but never says when to choose this tool over its siblings (video, batch, request). There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the only routing cue is the word 'text' implicit in the tool name.

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