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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the side effect of rewriting the embed code, that a snapshot with an integrity hash is built, and that the Enterprise plan is required. This is meaningful given annotations only carry destructive/idempotent flags without explaining what changes. It does not describe reversibility of un-pinning, so 4 not 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then consequences, then the plan prerequisite. Every sentence carries distinct information with no waste.

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 mutation tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the action, side effects, and plan gate. Missing only return/reversibility behavior, which keeps it short of a perfect score.

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% (enabled and website_id are both documented, including the 'Omit to use primary website' default). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate per the schema-does-the-work rule.

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 with real depth: 'Freeze the chat widget at its current version' plus the integrity-hash consequence. This clarifies the otherwise-ambiguous term 'pinning' precisely. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like update_widget_settings, so it lands at 4 rather than 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 clear context on what turning it on does ('builds that snapshot and changes the embed code') and a prerequisite ('Needs the Enterprise plan'). There are no explicit when-not-use conditions or named alternatives (e.g. vs update_widget_settings), so it stops short of 5.

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