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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the asymmetric visibility constraint, explaining that widening exposure is deliberately excluded, and pointing to the admin-gated alternative. This is exactly the boundary-condition context an agent needs for a mutation tool.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler, front-loaded with what the tool does before the exclusions and the visibility caveat. Every sentence carries distinct, load-bearing 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?

With 8 params at 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining needed context: scope, exclusions, and the visibility asymmetry. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning about the visibility parameter (only narrowing is permitted, no public toggle) that the schema alone captures only via the single-value enum. It adds value beyond the schema without repeating 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a stack profile's metadata') and enumerates the affected fields (name, description, category, tags, withdraw). It explicitly distinguishes itself from save_stack_profile_version and the publish flow, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance: contents are handled by save_stack_profile_version, and publishing is handled by the admin-gated publish flow. It also states the condition under which visibility applies (narrowing only, visibility='organisation' unpublishes). Alternatives are named concretely.

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