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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It does add the useful PATCH contract ('omitted fields stay unchanged'), but with destructiveHint=true it never explains what is destructible or what the idempotency guarantee covers.

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, zero waste, and the scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the PATCH caveat. Everything present earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema documents all 13 params. The main residual gap is disambiguation from media_kit_update_content, which the description only partially addresses via 'profile copy and supported design fields'.

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% with per-field descriptions and enums, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description's 'profile copy and supported design fields' loosely frames the editable surface but adds no format, constraint, or null-clearing detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Update profile copy and supported design fields of one owned media kit' scopes the operation to a single kit and to profile/design metadata. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the close sibling media_kit_update_content, so an agent must still infer which one to call.

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?

'Omitted fields stay unchanged' establishes PATCH semantics and implies partial-update usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (ownership, media_kit_id source), and no routing away from media_kit_update_content.

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