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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it rebuilds a document and then patches slots, implying a two-step behavior. It doesn't disclose side effects beyond what annotations cover, but it does clarify the migration nature. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The core action is front-loaded. It could be slightly more structured by naming the alternative tools, but it's concise and readable.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return values are covered. The description explains the migration workflow but lacks parameter semantics and explicit routing to siblings. For a migration tool with 3 params and 2 required, an agent would need more context on what idempotencyKey and workspaceId mean, and when to use this vs carousels_compile. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 only 33% (only projectId has a description, and it's just 'UUID string.'). The description does not explain the parameters at all. idempotencyKey and workspaceId are undocumented in the schema, and the description doesn't compensate. With low coverage, the description should add meaning but doesn't.

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 states a specific action: 'Rebuild a compile slot document from a legacy overlay carousel' and then 'patch slots like any compiled deck.' This clearly identifies the resource (compile slot document) and the operation (migrate/rebuild from legacy carousel). It distinguishes itself from siblings like carousels_compile and carousels_patch_document by focusing on legacy migration, though it doesn't explicitly 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?

The description implies usage: use this when you have a legacy overlay carousel and need to rebuild a compile slot document. It says 'Then patch slots like any compiled deck,' which hints at a workflow but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like carousels_compile or carousels_patch_document. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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