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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: post-fielding instrument edits are refused with `invalid`, and the call may return `needs_confirmation` (implying the approvalId flow). It does not spell out what a successful mutation returns, but the refusal guard is disclosed.

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?

Front-loads the core action and then packs pause/resume, cadence, anytime settings, the instrument constraint, id provenance, and the confirmation hint into tightly worded clauses with no filler. The slash-and-backtick density is slightly hard to scan but every sentence earns its place.

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-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutability model, the hard refusal condition, the id source, and the confirmation envelope. The only meaningful omission is the unexplained metricId parameter, which is undocumented everywhere.

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?

At 50% schema coverage the description compensates by grouping parameters semantically: interval/scheduleTime/scheduleTimezone/dayOfWeek move the cadence, enabled toggles pause/resume, and name plus follow-up/auto-analyze settings change anytime. metricId remains unexplained in both schema and description, leaving one gap.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Edits a series") and enumerates exactly which fields are mutable, distinguishing scheduling fields from broadcast instrument fields. It does not name a sibling tool directly, though it hints at the create path via "the answer is a new series."

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?

Gives a concrete when/when-not rule: the instrument is editable only while no wave has fielded, and afterwards the correct move is a new series. It also points to prism_series_list as the id source. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with prism_series_create or launch_wave by name.

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