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

Goes well beyond the annotations to explain the staging model: edits are saved to the draft and revision history, title/description/theme only reach viewers on the next publish_demo, while settings and access apply immediately. That immediate-effect-on-access warning is exactly the risk context an agent needs for a destructive-flagged 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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the mutable fields, then publish semantics, then permissions. No filler; the parenthetical clarifications replace what would otherwise be schema lookups.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with nested settings and no output schema, the definition covers staging behavior, permissions and field meanings well. Minor gap: it does not say whether omitted fields are left untouched or what an omitted/partial update does.

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 57% schema coverage, the description compensates for the undocumented fields: it clarifies that `description` renders under the title on the hosted page, that themeId is a brand kit from list_workspaces, and that access is a share setting. The nested `settings` object and `folderId` are left to the schema, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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 (Changes) and enumerates exactly which demo-level attributes are in scope: title, description, share settings, brand kit, folder, access. That enumeration implicitly separates it from content/scene/step siblings (update_content, update_scene, update_step), so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 prerequisites (demos:read, demos:write, plus demos:publish for `access`) and tells the agent where the themeId comes from (list_workspaces). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or say when not to use this one, which keeps it below a 5.

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