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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false), the description explains exactly what is mutated: the signal agent's read and act pools, its workflow, and the discovery pool. It also makes the replacement semantics explicit. This gives an agent a solid behavioral model of the side effects.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the impacted components and the required prerequisite. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the effect, the prerequisite, and the source for valid account IDs. It does not define watchId explicitly or mention edge cases, but the tool name and context make the intent reasonably clear.

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 already describes accountIds well, and the description reinforces it by framing the action as replacing the accounts and requiring at least one. However, with 50% schema coverage, watchId has no schema description and the description also does not elaborate on what a watchId is or how to obtain one. The provided guidance is valid but only partially compensates for that gap.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Replaces the LinkedIn accounts a competitor watch reads and acts with.' It then names the concrete affected components (read/act pools, workflow, discovery pool), which clearly distinguishes it from related sibling tools like update_signal_agent or set_workflow_accounts.

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 makes the usage context clear: change which LinkedIn accounts a competitor watch uses. It also gives an explicit prerequisite and helper tool: 'Use campaignstack_list_accounts to find valid account IDs,' and states the minimum input requirement. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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