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

Annotations already declare the write/destructive profile, so the description earns credit for going beyond them: 'Nodes are untouched' bounds the blast radius of the edit, 'May return needs_confirmation' discloses an approval round-trip the agent must handle, and null-reverts-to-origin documents a surprising mutation. It doesn't say whether visibility changes are reversible or what the success response contains.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the mutation scope, followed by the constraint (nodes untouched), the id source, and the confirmation caveat. No filler and nothing buried.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, id provenance, and the confirmation workflow, and annotations carry the safety profile. It leaves the workspace-slug fallback and per-param formatting to the schema, which is reasonable. Nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.

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 67%, with the workspace, approvalId, fieldId, and visibility params already well documented in-schema. The description adds meaning the schema lacks: that passing null for name reverts to the origin idea, and that approvalId ties to the needs_confirmation envelope. It says nothing about name/description length bounds, which the schema handles.

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 (edits) and resource (field) and enumerates exactly which attributes are mutable: name, description, visibility. That distinguishes it from prism_fields_create/delete/get without needing the schema. It stops short of explicitly routing against those siblings, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied. It supplies two useful preconditions — field ids come from prism_fields_list and the call may return needs_confirmation — but never says when to reach for this tool versus prism_fields_create or prism_fields_delete. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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