tokportal_configure_bundle_warming_terms

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns and expands significantly: it explicitly states the one-shot irreversible nature, explains the deferred configuration context, details conditions about active coverage and automatic renewal, and clarifies what happens if coverage cannot renew (no task or media mutation starts). This far exceeds bare annotations, providing rich behavioral clarity.

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 moderately sized at 5 sentences with essential information front-loaded (purpose and key constraints). While every sentence adds value, some phrases like 'In which case the warming session starts immediately' and technical jargon ('advanced_warming_terms_count') could be slightly compressed without losing meaning. Still, overall efficient for the 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?

Given no output schema, the description effectively communicates the tool's behavior, constraints, and edge cases (grandfathered accounts, automatic renewal, account status interactions). It covers the complete workflow context—from purchase to configuration to execution—leaving no critical gaps about what the tool does or when it's applicable.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by framing the `advanced_warming_terms` parameter in the context of the purchase count and deferred configuration, reinforcing the one-shot constraint. However, it doesn't detail the exact relationship with `idempotency_key` or the body's structure beyond what the schema already states.

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 identifies the tool as configuring niche targets for a count-only Advanced Niche Warming purchase, with the verb 'Configure' and specific resource 'bundle warming terms.' It distinguishes this from related tools like tokportal_configure_bundle_account by noting it stays available at any account status and is specifically for deferred configuration after purchase.

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 provides explicit when-to-use conditions (must provide exactly the purchased number of targets, one-shot behavior, works at any account status) and also implies when not to use (not for updating existing targets, since once set they cannot be changed). It indirectly distinguishes from PUT /bundles/{id}/account by contrasting availability across account statuses.

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