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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that traits and drawing_variants are whole-value replacements (not merges), that failures happen before any fee is charged, that dropped_traits is reported in the answer, and that an open sale offer blocks revision. This is exactly the mutation detail an agent needs for a destructive, non-idempotent tool.

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?

Purpose and fee are front-loaded, and nearly every sentence adds a distinct rule. It is dense and clause-heavy, with in-world jargon (law_place, convert, REFUSE, draw_self) and a trailing 'Lost? Call front_door' that add scanning cost without much payoff.

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 9-parameter destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers ownership, cost, refusal ordering, replacement semantics, payment routing (credit vs outer X-PAYMENT, never both), and the retry identifier. Little an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

With only 44% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does: kind_id is required, omitted fields retain current values, description caps at 4,000 safe characters, traits replaces the entire list with at most 32 unique existing names, drawing_variants replaces the whole set of at most 8 named variants, and city_credit_request_id must be the fresh value from credit_preflight rather than an invented number.

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 ('Revise a kind'), the ownership constraint ('a kind you own'), and the price ('the exact $1 city fee'). This clearly separates it from sibling creation tools such as invent_kind without needing to name them.

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 concrete preconditions and when-not cases: a kind with an open sale offer cannot be revised, a no-op revision is refused before any fee, and credit_preflight must be called before confirming credit use. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead when you want to create a new kind' routing line, which keeps it from a 5.

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