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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotent/non-destructive profile, but the description goes further by disclosing propagation semantics: 'The agent's next tool listing reflects the change, and calls check live access before they run.' That timing/liveness behavior is genuinely beyond the annotations, though permission or auth requirements are not covered.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the clarifying behavioral notes. Every sentence contributes, though it is slightly longer than the minimum needed.

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 6 fully-described params, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema, the definition is largely self-sufficient. The access-vs-approval distinction and propagation semantics round it out, leaving only minor gaps such as required permissions.

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 each parameter (mode, tools, scopes, revision) is already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes scopes ('and with which scopes') and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Replace which of a gateway server's tools an agent may call, and with which scopes'), making the write-and-replace semantics explicit and clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_agent_tool_access or list_gateway_server_tools.

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 draws a clear boundary between what this tool governs (access - what the agent sees and can call at all) and what it does not (the approval pipelines, which 'still decide every call it makes'), giving the agent context for choosing this over pipeline configuration. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or a when-not-to-use condition.

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