set_engagement_control

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, non-destructive, idempotent), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: with canned the platform answers on the agent's behalf without triggering it, and the effect persists only until expiry. That is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs to know before calling.

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?

Three sentences, action semantics front-loaded, then the canned behavior, then the identity key. No filler, though the parenthetical channel list makes the last sentence dense.

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?

With six parameters fully documented in the schema, annotations present and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: mode semantics and the behavioral consequence of canned. reason and expires_in_days are left to the schema, which is acceptable at 100% coverage.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by spelling out what user_key means per channel (digits-only phone on WhatsApp, idUsuario in webhook, user_id in chat) rather than only cross-referencing agent_memory/consumer_key.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (define/reopen engagement control of an agent with a consumer) and disambiguates the two modes of operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby sibling set_session_control, but an agent can still tell what this tool does.

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?

States clearly when each action applies: canned stops the agent engaging and auto-replies `message` until expiry, engage reopens. This is genuine when-to-use guidance, though it never names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition.

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