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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: owner scoping and the required 'Authorization: Bearer <JWT>' header. It also reveals the return shape (steps, wiring, guards, stage) beyond the annotation profile.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then usage, then auth constraint — a sensible order. The middle clause ('rather than against what you remember authoring') is longer than needed but does carry real meaning; the stray internal whitespace is cosmetic.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers auth, ownership scoping, and usage timing. Minor gap: no mention of failure modes such as a missing rig or a non-owned id.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already explains that id is the rig's UUID and that rig_search lists them. The description adds nothing further about the id's format or source, so this is the baseline case where the schema does the work.

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 (read) and resource (one rig) with explicit scope: 'Read ONE of your rigs in full — its steps, wiring, guards and stage.' The emphasis on ONE plus the full-detail enumeration separates it from list-style siblings such as rig_search.

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 concrete when-to-use conditions: before editing so changes are made against saved state, and after a run to verify rig shape. No explicit 'when not to use' or named alternative, though the schema's parenthetical points at rig_search for obtaining the id.

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