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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful context that no ownership check or HTTPS provisioning occurs. However it never explains the optimistic-concurrency behavior of expected_version (what a stale version does) or that a null hostname is the removal path, which matters for a destructive write.

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?

Two tight sentences with the operation front-loaded and the key caveat second. No filler, and the most decision-relevant warning is stated early.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, 4-parameter mutation with no output schema and only 50% schema coverage, the description should clarify version conflict behavior and the null-hostname removal route. It covers the biggest caveat but leaves an agent guessing on two parameters.

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 50%: company and idempotency_key are documented in-schema, while hostname and expected_version are not. The description alludes to 'expected version' but does not explain its semantics or the null-hostname removal convention, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 pair (save/remove) and resource (custom guide hostname) scoped by expected version, which distinguishes it from the nearby summer_guides_hosting_get and summer_guides_hosting_verify siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly.

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 caveat that saving 'does not verify ownership or provision HTTPS' implies a separate verify/ownership step exists, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is only inferable.

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