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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation and repeatability profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the ownership prerequisite ('owned media kit') and by scoping out password/domain management; it still omits the consequence of destructive switching (existing link access being revoked).

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 tight sentences, with the core action front-loaded before the negative scope clause. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is padding.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and both required params are documented at 100% coverage. The description covers scope, ownership, and exclusions; it is slightly thin on the destructive consequence of switching an already-shared kit to private.

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%, and the visibility enum is fully documented in the schema (link vs private semantics), so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the two visibility modes and adds no format, syntax, or ID-sourcing detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 concrete verb (switch/set) and resource (media kit visibility) with the exact two states involved ('link-only and private'), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like media_kit_update or media_kit_set_social_visibility. It does not explicitly name or rule out those similarly-named siblings, so it falls short of 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: call this when you want to flip a kit between link and private. The negative scope ('does not manage passwords or custom domains') steers the agent away from expecting password/domain behavior, but no prerequisite (must be the owner) or alternative tool is named, so routing guidance is only partial.

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