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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful context: the write creates a *new revision* rather than mutating in place, and it is invoked only by the viewer UI. It does not explain the concurrency semantics of expectedTreeHash or what happens on a hash mismatch, which is a real gap for a write operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, followed by the routing constraint. No filler and every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values need no explanation, and the viewer-internal framing is fully covered. However, with three required parameters and only one documented, the definition leaves the agent without an understanding of how values is shaped or what expectedTreeHash enforces.

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 33%: forgeId is documented but values and expectedTreeHash are not. The description loosely maps 'panel values' onto the values parameter, but expectedTreeHash — an apparent optimistic-concurrency token — is entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so it fails to compensate 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?

The description states a precise verb+resource+outcome: it saves the panel values chosen in the PartForge viewer as the forge's new default settings, written as a new revision. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling that performs a superficially similar job (apply_part_changes), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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 names when the tool fires (when the person presses Keep in the viewer) and, more importantly, when NOT to use it — 'it is not a tool for the assistant' — and names the alternative (apply_part_changes) for editing defaults. This is the strongest form of routing guidance.

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