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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: no cost, owner-consent requirement, a stable clientRequestId for idempotency (consistent with idempotentHint=true), and the fact that the current selection version is read on the caller's behalf. The notable gap is that destructiveHint=true is never explained — the description doesn't say the previous selection is replaced or lost, which is exactly what an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then cost/consent constraint, then the idempotency and recovery mechanics. No sentence is filler and nothing is buried.

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 destructive, non-read-only mutation with no output schema, the description covers cost, consent, idempotency, concurrency handling and failure recovery. It stops short of saying what state the selection overwrites or what is returned, which leaves one meaningful hole.

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 coverage is 67%: actorId and actorVersion are documented in-schema, while clientRequestId is bare. The description compensates by telling the agent to pass a *stable* clientRequestId (retry semantics) and by reinforcing that actorVersion must be the current one from soclo_actors_list.

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 — select an owned, ready actor to reuse in future adverts — and pins down the source of the two identifiers (actorId and current actorVersion from soclo_actors_list). An agent can distinguish this from soclo_actors_list, soclo_actors_current, soclo_actors_create and soclo_actors_remove without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit consent gate ("only when the owner asks"), a cost signal ("Free"), and a named recovery path: read soclo_actors_current after an uncertain result before choosing again. That is when-to-use, a when-not, and a sibling alternative all in two sentences.

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