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

Annotations already carry idempotentHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds real value on top: the matching keys (entries by type+name, panels by title), the update-instead-of-duplicate behavior, and that roles go live on import. It does not explicitly warn what existing data is overwritten by a re-run, which a destructiveHint=true operation would ideally state.

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?

Purpose and idempotency are front-loaded, and the dense detail about matching, roles, and language tabs all earns its place. Sentences are long but information-dense rather than padded.

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, idempotent bulk import with no output schema, the description covers format, idempotency semantics, role handling, and language-tab merging. The only notable omission is an explicit statement of what is overwritten on re-run, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 only 50% and projectId is undocumented, but the description thoroughly compensates for the complex brief parameter by describing its format, entry/panel structure, and the special languages field. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's terse "parsed lunafic-brief/1 object."

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 (bulk-import) and resource (Lunafic Brief) plus its JSON format, which is far more specific than a tautology. It implies routing by noting when to prefer it, but does not name a sibling tool for the alternative path, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

"Prefer this for whole characters AND player roles" gives clear selection guidance and calls out the mc_template role case with an inline-panels requirement. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative sibling (e.g., upsert_panel/create_entry), leaving the exclusion to inference.

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