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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the population drawing happens in the background and 'takes a few seconds' (latency/async behavior), the default visibility is workspace-scoped 'unless visibility is PRIVATE', and it 'May return `needs_confirmation`', flagging the approval flow. These are distinct operational traits the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags do not convey.

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, front-loaded with the core action before the caveats, and every clause carries information (timing, visibility default, confirmation). Slightly dense but no 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 create tool with a complex nested spec, no output schema, and 33% schema coverage, the description omits the structure of the spec object entirely and never says what a successful call returns (only the needs_confirmation branch). It covers the confirmation flow but leaves the main payload and success return unexplained.

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 only 33%, so the description must carry more weight, and it only clarifies visibility (PRIVATE scoping) and the origin of the spec. name, description, the nested spec fields (seed, size, filters, targets, presentation), and approvalId usage are left to the schema or undocumented.

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 and resource ('Saves a panel from a spec') and ties it to the workflow by naming the sibling prism_panels_draft as the usual spec source. An agent can distinguish this create step from the draft/get/list siblings without opening the schema.

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?

The parenthetical '(usually from prism_panels_draft)' implies the correct ordering (draft first, then create) and the description points at the confirmation path, giving clear context. It stops short of an explicit when-not clause or naming alternatives for other paths (e.g. prism_panels_run), so it is not a full 5.

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