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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the apply_mode "reopen" sequence (save, back up, close, apply, reopen), the logic_control macOS gate, and the not-connected path (how the user gets and pairs the app, what still works without it). These are traits not inferable from annotations. It omits cost/latency details, so 4 rather than 5.

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 with the core question, then the field inventory, then the failure case – well-ordered and dense. The parenthetical apply_mode expansion is worth its length, but the trailing 'Read-only.' duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and is mild waste.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names each reported field and explains the disconnected branch. An agent has enough to call it and interpret the result without further docs.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and baseline is 4. The description instead spends its words documenting return fields, which is appropriate for a paramless tool.

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?

It opens with a specific, answerable question (is Dø Desktop running, can it push edits into Logic) and states exactly what the tool reports: sessions held, apply_mode, logic_control, reopen_results, applied cursor. No sibling covers this diagnostic role, and the description makes that distinctive 'is my edit going to land now' framing explicit.

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?

It gives a clear selection condition: 'Use it to know whether an edit will reach the project now or wait for the next session open,' which implicitly routes agents here before edit_session. It does not name when-not to call it or explicitly name the alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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