Start Account Trial

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing the AccountPolicy authorization gate, the 403 failure mode, the hardcoded tier, the required confirm=true flag, and the side effects of sharing access, notifying people, and incurring provider charges. This is exactly the extra operational context the flags alone cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by caller scope, precondition, permissions, and the confirm requirement. The permissions block is boilerplate but functional; a couple of trailing clauses could be tightened without loss.

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 no-required-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical concerns: authorization gate, error behavior (403), confirmation requirement, and side effects. It doesn't describe the success response shape, but with no output schema that omission is minor.

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 the schema already documents both 'account' (credential selector) and 'confirm'. The description reinforces that confirm=true is mandatory for the mutation but adds no new syntax or format detail, 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 pins the exact plan tier (hardcoded business-tier). No sibling performs anything comparable, so an agent can identify it unambiguously from the name and first sentence.

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 scopes usage tightly by naming the sole caller (the desktop app's 'Invite and start trial' onboarding CTA) and the authorization precondition (current contact must be permitted via AccountPolicy, else 403). There are no alternate tools to compare against, so no explicit 'use X instead' is needed, but it never states when-not to call it.

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