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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations: it discloses that the same permissions, plan limits and validations apply, that a 422 enumerates what is missing, that operations can trigger push/e-mail notifications to students, and that some are irreversible and should be confirmed first. This is exactly the context the annotations cannot convey.

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, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by the side-effect caveat and the exclusion list. Dense and every clause earns its place, though the long enumeration of example operations and excluded domains makes it a heavier read than strictly necessary.

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 generic escape-hatch write tool with three params and no output schema, it covers the discovery workflow, permission/validation behavior, error signaling (422), side effects, irreversibility, and scope boundaries. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by tying method/path/body to their source (list_operations for method/path, describe_operation for body fields), which tells the agent how to populate them rather than just what they are.

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+resource: runs any POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE operation from list_operations as the trainer. The examples (archive workouts, assign programs, log sessions, send chat messages) and the explicit exclusion of payment/account operations make it distinguishable from api_read and the many single-purpose write siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent through list_operations and describe_operation before calling, and provides a concrete exclusion list (charges, refunds, subscriptions, plans, prices, coupons, tabs, withdrawals, bank details, password, account deletion) of things that must be done in the app instead. Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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