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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful semantic boundary about what voice does not authorize, but it never discloses that saving overwrites/replaces existing brand voice — the key implication of destructiveHint=true — nor any auth or prerequisite context.

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 the purpose, then parameter meaning, then the boundary constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no restatement of the title or schema boilerplate.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a destructive, non-readOnly mutation the description omits what gets replaced, whether brandId must reference an existing brand, and any permission requirement — leaving meaningful gaps for the calling agent.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it does: voiceSummary is 'the tone in plain language' and voiceTraits are 'short labels such as plain, specific, or calm', with concrete examples that help constraining the array items. brandId is left unexplained, which is the only 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Store how this brand should sound.' An agent can distinguish it from save_offer or save_approved_claim because the description scopes the resource to voice/tone. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 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?

Provides a clear negative boundary — 'Voice does not approve a claim, a guarantee, a discount, or an offer' — which steers the agent toward save_approved_claim/save_offer for those cases. There is no explicit 'when to use this' positive trigger or prerequisite (e.g., brand must already exist), so it is not a full 5.

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