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

Annotations only flag destructive/non-idempotent/open-world; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the redraw budget (5 redraws, 3 full generations), the exact cost of each 'what' and orientation combination, what cannot be edited directly, and that it returns a job id to be polled via check_generation. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before consuming a scarce resource.

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?

Dense and front-loaded with the most important constraints, but it reads as one long paragraph mixing usage rules, budget accounting, and parameter semantics. All content earns its place; minor structural cost only.

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 destructive, budget-limited mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, mode semantics, budget accounting, and the required follow-up call. 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description still adds real meaning: it explains enumeration members ('everything' rebuilds from a NEW full description), the interaction between 'welcome' and orientation (1 vs 2 redraws, omit to redraw both), and per-mode instruction intent and limits beyond what the schema states.

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 ('change a booth draft') plus the exact resource ('from start_booth', identified by check_generation's draftId), and clearly separates itself from siblings like update_booth_draft and refine_frame by describing a redraw-based mutation rather than a direct edit.

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?

Gives explicit when/when-not guidance: 'Call only when the operator asks for a change — never iterate on your own,' and routes 'everything' to the case where the operator 'wants a different booth, not a tweak.' It also names check_generation as the required follow-up and pre-requisite source of draftId.

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