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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description adds value beyond that: the instrument-editability window, the `invalid` refusal behavior, and the fact that it "May return `needs_confirmation`" — a behavioral detail absent from annotations. It does not discuss auth requirements or the reversibility of destructive changes.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the core action and each clause carries distinct information (pause/resume, cadence, name, instrument lock, id source, confirmation). Nothing is wasted, though the run-on semicolon structure is slightly harder to scan than a broken-out list.

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 14-param mutation tool with no output schema and 50% schema coverage, the description covers the essential behavioral context an agent needs: the instrument lockout, the id source, and the confirmation flow. Remaining gaps — metricId semantics and consequences of destructive edits — are minor against annotations that already flag destructiveness.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage across 14 params, the description compensates well by grouping params to effects: enabled false/true for pause/resume, interval/scheduleTime/scheduleTimezone/dayOfWeek as cadence movers, and questions/scorer as the instrument. metricId and adaptiveFollowUps are left largely or wholly unexplained, which keeps it below a 5.

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 ("Edits a series") and then enumerates exactly what is editable: enabled (pause/resume), cadence params, name, follow-up/auto-analyze settings, and the instrument. It also references the sibling prism_series_list for id sourcing and points to creating a new series when the instrument is locked, so an agent can tell it apart from prism_series_create and prism_series_launch_wave.

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 gives an explicit when-not rule: the instrument (questions/scorer) is editable only while no wave has fielded, after which the server refuses with `invalid` and the correct move is a new series. It also tells where series ids come from. It stops short of naming alternatives for the pause/resume/cadence paths, leaving those as implied.

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