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

Goes well past the destructive/idempotent/openWorld annotations: it discloses immediate restoration of normal content, the idempotent success case (alreadyEnded:true), the failure mode for an unknown id (fails and lists what is running), and the required scopes (screen.cast / emergency-override.create). These are exactly the operational details an agent needs before firing a destructive call.

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?

Front-loaded opening sentence states action and blast radius, then labeled sections (When to use / When NOT to use / What to know / Parameters) make scanning trivial. Dense but every clause carries actionable information with no filler.

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 single required-parameter, destructive tool with an output schema, this covers discovery (list_items), permissions, idempotency behavior, and failure semantics; return-value detail is delegated to the output schema as expected. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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?

The schema only says 'Takeover id.', but the description adds that castId accepts a castId from start_takeover, an emergency id (emg_…), a content id, or the takeover's exact headline — and that the last two forms end every matching takeover. That is meaningful semantics the schema does not carry.

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 (End) plus resource (takeover or emergency) and scope (every screen it covers, in one call), which immediately separates it from start_takeover and set_screen_content. The sibling tools listed do not overlap with this scope, so an agent can route to it without opening a 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?

Explicitly enumerates when to use (tearing down what start_takeover started, early), when NOT to use (changing default content -> set_screen_content; per-screen looping), and points at list_items kind casts/emergencies for discovery. Alternatives and exclusions are named, not implied.

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