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

Annotations declare this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is not destructive, so the description's job is to add nuance — and it does. Saying private_terms 'replaces the list' discloses overwrite semantics not implied by the annotations, and 'never shown publicly' states the privacy guarantee. No mention of auth beyond the schema's api_key, so not a full 5.

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 what the tool sets and followed by the one non-obvious behavioral fact (list replacement + privacy). No filler, no restating the title, and every sentence 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?

For a 3-parameter, all-optional mutation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers what each setting does plus replacement semantics. The one real gap is the missing routing hint against set_work_visibility, so it falls short of 5.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that private_terms is a full replacement (the schema only says 'Words to always remove') and by paraphrasing rollup's effect on the feed. It omits the rollup default of true, which the schema already carries.

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 names a specific verb and two concrete resources: 'words that must never be published from your work log' and 'whether the feed shows your daily task count.' That is far more specific than most privacy-setter descriptions. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling set_work_visibility, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative set_work_visibility, which sounds like it covers adjacent ground. The agent must guess which of the two privacy tools to call.

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