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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the auth requirement (authorized account or write-scope API key) and the return shape (updated set with image data stripped). It does not surface that replacing the locale list destroys removed translations, but that detail lives in the schema.

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 tightly packed sentences that front-load the operations, then the return value, then the auth prerequisite. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return-value contract ('updated set with image data stripped'), and it also states the auth requirement. Partial-update semantics are implied by 'and/or'. Minor gaps remain around whether unspecified fields are left untouched, but overall this is complete enough to call correctly.

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 100%, so every parameter (name, set_id, locales, screen_order) is already documented, including the loss-of-translations warning on locales. The description names the three updatable areas but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a concrete verb+resource (update a screenshot set) and enumerates the three specific mutations it can perform: rename, replace the extra-locale list, and reorder screens. This is unambiguous, but it does not differentiate from the singular sibling sonar_update_screenshot or sonar_set_screenshot_translations, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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 'and/or' phrasing implies this is a partial-update tool where any subset of fields may be supplied, which hints at when to use it. However there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to alternatives such as sonar_set_screenshot_translations (which handles translation content) or sonar_update_screenshot (singular).

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