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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable boundaries the annotations cannot express: it "displays choices only; does not install or run tools" and should be shown once rather than repeatedly.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded with what is shown, then when to use it, then the boundary. Each sentence carries distinct information, with only minor overlap between the usage and boundary statements.

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 no output schema, the description correctly conveys that this is a display-only card and clarifies it does not perform installs or execution. Only minor gaps remain, such as what the agent should do after the card is shown.

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% and both parameters carry enum values with descriptions (including the 'chatbot' default and 'changes wording only' note). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource — it shows a card with three specific questions (tool types, where projects run, update presentation). This is far more specific than a restated title, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like kloudy_connect_card.

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 states the triggering condition ("Use when the user wants to set or change these preferences") and adds an explicit negative guard ("Show once, not for every tool"). Alternatives are not named, but the when/when-not coverage is clear.

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