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

Annotations already indicate the tool mutates (readOnlyHint=false) and is idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by constraining the operation to PREPARING drafts and clarifying the partial-update nature of passing one or both guide fields.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place. It states the core action first, then gives the domain clarification, the parameters to pass, and the critical state restriction, with 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 simple three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, this description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, state constraints, and how this tool differs from task-related siblings, leaving no critical gap.

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 0%, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It compensates well by defining openingGuide and closingGuide semantically (moderator's intro and wrap-up script) and by indicating optionality. utId is not explicitly described, but it is clearly implied by 'a draft UT's' and is the only required parameter in the schema.

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 and resource: 'Set a draft UT's scenario opening and/or closing guide.' It then explains the domain with concrete detail (moderator's intro and wrap-up script, session-level framing, not a task) and states the valid state (PREPARING drafts), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like update_task and update_use_case.

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 tells the agent exactly when to use the tool: only on PREPARING drafts, and exactly how to use it: pass openingGuide and/or closingGuide. It also gives an exclusion by clarifying this is not a task but session-level framing, guiding the agent away from task-related sibling tools.

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