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

Adds rich behavioral context beyond annotations: the 24-item cap with the specific 429 addon_cap error, the locked-attachment semantics for unbought priced items, and the Authorization: Bearer <JWT> requirement. Only idempotency is redundant with the idempotentHint annotation.

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-loads the attach action, then layers in the consequential details (locking, cap, idempotency, auth) in terse sentences. No sentence is filler.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation's effect, limits, side-effect semantics (locked, no unlock), rate/cap behavior, and auth—everything needed to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents kind, note, and listing_id including accepted identifier formats. The description adds only marginal context ('published, or not') and leaves parameter interpretation to the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 precise verb+resource: 'Attach a published rig or skill to your Rokha.' It further clarifies the scope (your own listings, published or not), distinguishing it from siblings like rokha_addon_remove and rokha_addons_catalog without opening them.

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?

Explains the attachment outcome and routes buying to a separate step ('buying is a separate step; attaching never unlocks it'), which tells the agent when this tool is and isn't the right one. It does not explicitly name the removal or catalog siblings, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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