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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: required auth, the account-linking prerequisite flow, the self-exclusion constraint, and the notification consequence ('you're told when their brief changes'). It does not describe return values or error behavior.

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, prerequisites front-loaded, no filler. Every clause conveys actionable information (auth, source of handle, constraint, side effect).

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers prerequisites, parameter provenance, constraints, and downstream behavior. The remaining gap is what the tool returns and whether the pick is reversible (via network_unpick), which is a minor omission.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does add meaning by identifying the sole 'handle' parameter as a page handle obtained from network_briefs, which is genuinely useful disambiguation not present in the schema. It could go further on format/resolution semantics.

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 specific verb and resource: it 'adds a member ... to your promoting list.' Combined with the title, an agent can distinguish this from network_unpick and network_my_picks. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 gives concrete preconditions (JWT, linked X account via x_link_start → x_link_verify) and an explicit exclusion ('You can't pick yourself'). It does not name network_unpick as the inverse operation, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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