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

Even though annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the exact effect of each action, the guardrail on removing the last alias, the editor permission requirement, the note that no LLM call is made, and that the outcome is returned. This surpasses the annotations' binary flags.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then provides necessary usage context, action behavior, alternatives, and result. Every sentence contributes distinct value—no filler or restating of the title.

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?

Given the three required parameters, an output schema, and annotations already covering safety, the description covers permissions, action semantics, a critical edge case (last alias removal), and points to further docs. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description goes further by explaining the semantic effect of the action enum values ('removing the last alias is refused', 'promotes its displayed form') and by telling the agent where to obtain alias_id and concept_id (from get_semantic_concept). It does not redefine the UUID parameters, but the schema already does.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('remove or promote') applied to a specific resource ('concept alias'), and names the source of IDs ('get_semantic_concept'). It differentiates between the two action modes and explicitly directs adding aliases to a sibling tool, so an agent can distinguish it from add_semantic_concept or delete_semantic_concepts.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the remove action, when to use set_canonical, and gives a concrete alternative for adding an alias ('use add_semantic_concept(alias_of=...)'). It also states the prerequisite ('using alias IDs from get_semantic_concept') and a constraint ('removing the last alias is refused').

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