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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the multi-step sequence and the existence of a help/discovery action, but says nothing about what 'destructive' means here, whether steps are resumable, or what cancel_import discards.

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?

The flow is front-loaded in the first sentence and the action list follows; it is short and free of filler. Slight redundancy in restating the actions after already describing them keeps it from a 5.

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 high-complexity orchestration tool with a dynamic nested 'params' object and no output schema, the description covers the happy path and the discovery mechanism, but omits sequencing requirements, auth/permission needs, and the consequences of the destructive/cancel actions.

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 67% and the enum already lists every action value, so the description's action list is largely redundant. The one real addition is pointing to action "help" as the way to discover the free-form 'params' fields, which the schema cannot enumerate — enough for baseline 3, not more.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource (run first-time setup) and enumerates the actual workflow steps and action values, so an agent knows this is a multi-step setup orchestrator rather than a read. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_setup (read vs. mutate), which holds it back from 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?

Usage is implied by 'first-time setup' and the ordered flow (import → answer → approve → finish), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison to get_setup/update_profile. The 'call with action help' pointer is invocation guidance, not tool-selection guidance.

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