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

The description discloses billing, editor permission, asynchronous job_id return, incremental scope behavior, and that proposals are written to get_schema's working copy until publishing. These behavioral traits go well beyond the annotations and do not contradict readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, or destructiveHint.

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?

Every sentence carries distinct value: purpose/cost, permission, timing, incremental behavior, response handling, and follow-up workflow. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains dense without being repetitive.

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 billed, asynchronous analysis with downstream editing and publishing, the description covers cost, privileges, job-result handling, incremental rerun semantics, corrective workflow, and documentation for entity-level choices. Little is left for an agent to infer.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the schema already explains schema_id and model. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Start a billed analysis') and concrete deliverables ('proposing database keys, SQL types, indexes and relationship ownership on a linked schema'). It is clearly distinguishable from generic analysis siblings by naming the job workflow and what the analysis produces.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('use this after relevant edits'), when it is unnecessary ('empty scope does not rerun unchanged fields'), and what prerequisites apply ('Requires editor'). It also sequences follow-up tools: poll get_job_status, inspect get_schema, correct with property tools, then publish_schema.

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