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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower, but the description adds real value: "Existing media URLs are not revoked" clarifies the scope of the destructive action, and the discovery-removal effect is stated. It stops short of describing reversibility or the response, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the value semantics, then the side-effect caveat. No padding or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the action, value semantics, and the key non-effect on existing URLs. Missing only minor details such as reversibility behavior or what the call returns.

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 explains the two visibility values and their default/effect, but says nothing about series_id (format, where to obtain it), leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

"Set discovery visibility for your series" gives a specific verb (set), resource (series), and the property being changed (discovery visibility). No sibling tool touches visibility, so it is effectively distinct, though the description doesn't explicitly contrast with anything.

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?

"Public is the default; private removes it from discovery" tells the agent what each value does, which implies when to pick each, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no prerequisites, and no alternative tool to consider.

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