Start Account Trial

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true) by disclosing the required API token permission, the confirm=true gate, the 403 outcome when the contact is unauthorized, and side effects (sharing access, notifying people, provider charges). This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then structured into permission/precondition and confirm paragraphs with headers. Slightly padded by boilerplate ('May share access, notify people or incur provider charges'), but every section carries signal.

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 zero-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, authorization precondition, failure mode, and required permissions. It lacks any note on return behavior or post-trial state, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters (account, confirm) are already documented by the schema. The description adds tangential detail (plan tier is hardcoded, confirm needed for the mutation) but no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Starts a business-tier trial on the current account') and adds scope detail ('plan tier is hardcoded', 'only caller is the Wistia desktop app's Invite and start trial CTA'). This is clearly distinguishable from the many list_/get_ read siblings in this toolset.

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 real context for when this fires – it names the sole caller (desktop app onboarding CTA) and states the authorization precondition (AccountPolicy, else 403). It does not name a competing sibling or say explicitly 'do not call this ad hoc', but the single-caller framing strongly implies narrow use.

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