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

The description carries substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It discloses the mutation target ('writing annotations to the schema'), a negative behavior ('does not apply suggested structural changes'), the incremental-vs-force behavior, billing, the required role, and a specific error condition — all beyond what the annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose, and every subsequent sentence earns its place: prerequisite, billing, behavior control, return values, exclusions, error condition, sibling routing, and a docs pointer. It is longer than typical, but the tool's complexity (mutation, incremental modes, error states) justifies the length; a leaner pass was possible but the structure is effective.

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?

Highly complete for a complex tool. An output schema exists (so return values need not be spelled out), yet the description still summarizes what it returns, states what it does not apply, covers the error case, prerequisites, and the alternative tool, and points to interpretation guidance docs. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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. The description adds modest value by clarifying the default behavior of force ('Incremental by default; force=true rechecks all sites'), which the schema does not explicitly state — it only documents the default false value. This reinforces the schema rather than merely 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?

The description opens with a specific verb plus resource and action: 'Analyze a saved schema's property ambiguity and relationship identity scoping, writing annotations to the schema.' It then explicitly states what the tool does NOT do ('it does not apply suggested structural changes'), which distinguishes it from mutation-heavy siblings like update_schema, move_schema_property, and update_schema_property.

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?

Provides explicit routing to an alternative with a condition: 'Use update_schema_property for approved descriptions or renames; review structural changes and publish them when linked.' It also states a prerequisite ('Requires editor') and documents a failure mode ('Fails with ambiguity_check_disabled if the feature is off'), giving an agent clear when-to/when-not-to context.

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