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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses Thompson Sampling re-weighting, downstream positive-exit criteria, the possibility of killing underperformers via weight 0, skip conditions, and the return type. This gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and edge-case behavior; no contradiction with the annotations is evident.

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?

Every sentence contributes distinct information: purpose, algorithm, skip behavior, return value, and discovery/logging pointers. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation, algorithmic behavior, side effects, skip cases, return value, and how to obtain valid inputs. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides only the name 'nodeId' with no description, so the description's pointer to campaignstack_get_workflow_stats for finding split node IDs adds useful semantic value. It does not fully spell out the parameter format, but the single parameter is self-explanatory and the 'flow:split workflow node' context disambiguates it.

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 states a precise action ('Run split-node auto-optimization immediately'), a specific resource ('flow:split workflow node'), and contrasts it with waiting for the daily cron. It also names related sibling tools for finding node IDs and inspecting logs, making it clearly distinguishable.

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?

It explicitly frames the tool as the immediate alternative to the daily cron, and explains when it may skip execution (insufficient lead volume or insignificant weight change). It also directs the agent to campaignstack_get_workflow_stats for node ID discovery and campaignstack_list_split_optimization_logs for past optimizations.

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