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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds important context: partial updates ('Only the fields you send change'), null semantics (clearing fields), and batch atomicity ('one bad entry never drops the batch' – implies partial success or error isolation). While idempotency is annotated, the description doesn't explicitly state it, but the partial-update semantics and error handling are useful beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences that pack a lot of information with efficient phrasing. The first sentence states everything the tool does; the second explains workflow and batch behavior. No redundancy, front-loaded with the most critical info, and each clause adds value.

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 bulk update tool with one parameter array and full schema coverage, the description provides complete context: when to use (after reading plan), what can be changed, how updates behave (partial), and failure handling. No output schema, but return value isn't critical here. The description is sufficient for correct tool invocation.

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?

The schema already has 100% description coverage with rich details (explains 'null makes it undated', 'null clears it', 'get ids from list_planned_scripts'). The description repeats the essence but adds little beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema covers parameter semantics thoroughly.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Change scripts already in the user's Daily Studio content plan, by id and in bulk' with specific actions (move to other days, group into collections, retitle or rewrite). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'when the content already exists' and naming 'read the plan first with list_planned_scripts'. This is specific verb+resource+scope.

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 description explicitly provides usage guidance: 'read the plan first with list_planned_scripts, then send one call with all the changes' and contrasts with alternative tools (list_planned_scripts for reading). It also states the batch behavior: 'Only the fields you send change; one bad entry never drops the batch' – clear when-to-use and operational notes.

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