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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explicitly says 'MUTATES Olark data', highlights the API method, and warns of a paid-seat billing side effect. It also states the return value, adding significant behavioral context not available from annotations or schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important facts: mutation, resource, endpoint, required parameters, and a critical billing warning. Every sentence adds value, and the note about paid seats is appropriately prominent.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, required inputs, optional inputs, the destructive/billing side effect, and the return value. This gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and understand the impact.

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%, and the schema already documents email, password, nickname, and fields. The description reinforces that email and password are required and nickname is optional, but adds little beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('creates'), a specific resource ('a new operator (chat agent)'), and the exact API endpoint (POST /operators). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like update_operator and get_operator by framing the action as creating a new entity.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool to create a new operator. It notes required vs. optional fields, but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool update_operator or list cases where another tool should be chosen. This is a minor omission rather than a misleading one.

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