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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond the annotations: it returns a block the user pastes into settings, explains the `recommended` and `blocks` output structure, notes the tool-label matching behavior for `source`, and explicitly states 'it is not auto-applied' and 'Vilix logs nothing silently.' This aligns with and enriches the readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations.

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 detailed but every sentence serves a purpose: trigger conditions, return-value structure, parameter semantics, and opt-in behavior. It is front-loaded with the most important usage signal and uses structured mentions of `recommended`, `blocks`, and `source` to keep the information navigable.

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 the tool has one optional parameter, a rich output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, how the optional parameter affects the result, where the user should paste the result, and the opt-in nature, leaving no critical gap for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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?

The schema only defines `source` as string/null with a default, but the description fully explains its meaning and effect: the tool label the caller runs in, used to pick the right block, with examples and an omit-for-generic-default behavior. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 opens with a clear purpose statement, 'Make Vilix automatic,' and then defines exactly what the tool returns: a custom-instructions block plus where to paste it. It gives explicit trigger phrases and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools, which perform operations rather than setup guidance.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool: when the user asks 'how do I make this automatic' or 'set this up so it remembers on its own', or right after a first connection when offering setup. It also clarifies that this is an opt-in setup handoff, not something auto-applied, providing clear usage boundaries.

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