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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses real behavioral traits: schema warnings do not block persistence, the tool is unavailable for read-only API keys, and for templates this FINANCE.md serves as the live usage guide. These are not derivable from the annotations or schema alone.

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?

Every sentence carries a distinct fact: what is upserted, the session-start workflow, source semantics, template side effects, validation leniency, and auth restrictions. It is front-loaded and dense without padding.

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?

Given that the schema covers all parameters and the annotations cover safety/idempotence, the description supplies the remaining operational context: when to invoke it, side effects for templates, how validation behaves, and auth availability. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying source provenance, noting that 'auto' is reserved for generator output, and explicitly requiring the content to parse as YAML front matter.

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: 'Upsert the FINANCE.md for a model.' It also clarifies that the tool accepts the full Markdown document with YAML front matter, which separates it from sibling tools like layerz_get_finance_md, layerz_set_custom_instructions, and layerz_patch.

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 gives an explicit typical workflow: an agent reads FINANCE.md at the project root and pushes it at session start so later layerz_patch and layerz_build_from_blueprint calls share conventions. It also explains when to use source='imported' vs 'user'. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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