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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds real behavior: JWT auth is required, re-claim edits vs new handle renames, and style is merge-by-omission versus full-replace. This is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover failure modes or side effects on existing links.

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?

Dense and unbroken, but front-loaded with the claim/update distinction and every clause carries specification the schema lacks. It is long because the parameter space is large, not because of filler, though the style sub-object could be better delineated.

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 6-param nested mutation with no output schema and 17% schema coverage, the description is nearly self-sufficient. It omits only what happens on invalid input or how a rejection surfaces, which for a no-output-schema tool is a minor gap.

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 17%, so the description carries the burden and does so thoroughly: handle charset/length, display_name ≤80, bio ≤600, glyph 1-2 chars, links shape {label,url}, and every style sub-key with ranges (accent hex, panel_opacity 0.15–1, gallery ≤8 square images, fit objects with x/y/zoom/opacity). Far exceeds what the schema documents.

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 and resource ('Claim your public /@handle page') and immediately disambiguates the two modes: re-claiming your own handle edits in place, a new handle renames. The agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the 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?

Gives useful context on ownership ('owned by the verified caller') and the edit-vs-rename branch, but never routes the agent between this and siblings like page_get, page_me, or page_directory, nor states prerequisites beyond the auth requirement. Usage is implied rather than explicitly scoped.

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