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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint/openWorldHint) by disclosing the all-or-nothing rejection semantics, that faces stay locked, and that empty inputs leave a character unchanged. The one gap is what the tool returns or whether partial rollback is possible on other errors; still, the critical mutation risks are surfaced.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (scope, invariant, prerequisite, parameter semantics), with the propagation scope front-loaded. No filler.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers propagation, ordering prerequisite, failure mode, and the untouched-field invariant. It stops short of describing the response payload or the outfit_a/outfit_b vs outfits precedence, which would close the last gap.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It usefully explains 'outfits' as a map from character id (a to h) to wardrobe text and clarifies empty-input behavior, but leaves outfit_a/outfit_b unexplained and does not say how they interact with or are overridden by 'outfits' – a real ambiguity in a 5-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change wardrobe for episode n') plus the propagation scope ('and all later saved episodes'), which no sibling tool does. An agent can distinguish it from set_location, recast, and make_episode from this sentence alone.

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?

Explicit ordering guidance ('Call before make_episode') and an explicit failure condition ('the whole update is rejected if any affected episode is already queued'). This is exactly the when/when-not information an agent needs before committing a destructive write.

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