tokportal_configure_bundle_warming_terms

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the one-shot nature, the post-configuration lack of change, the account status conditions, warming session start triggers, TokPortal Coverage requirements, renewal behavior, and the fallback if coverage cannot renew. This goes well beyond the annotations, though the density of edge cases could be clearer.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but then expands into multiple conditional behaviors and edge cases, making it lengthy. While every sentence adds value, the structure could be more compact (e.g., bullet points or clearer separation of prerequisites vs. post-conditions). It is informative but not optimally concise.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers key contextual aspects: prerequisites (count-only purchase), constraints (exact count, one-shot), behavior under various account statuses, and renewal conditions. It adequately informs an agent when to invoke and what to expect, though some technical details (e.g., the exact RTU mechanism) are left implicit.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates the exact count and length constraints already in the schema and does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. It does not clarify the idempotency_key or body wrapper beyond the schema.

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 the tool configures niche targets for a count-only Advanced Niche Warming purchase, specifies deferred configuration after creation, and distinguishes itself from PUT /bundles/{id}/account by noting it works at any account status. The verb 'configure' and the resource 'bundle warming terms' are specific, and the differentiation from a sibling tool is explicit.

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 exactly when to use this tool: for a bundle created with advanced_warming_terms_count, requiring the exact purchased number of targets, and being a one-shot operation. It contrasts with another endpoint (PUT /bundles/{id}/account) but does not explicitly list all alternatives or state when not to use it beyond the implied scope.

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