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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: what it sets lands only at create_booth time, that it 'never touches a booth that already exists', and that partial failures come back as applied/rejected that must be relayed as a rejection rather than success. This is non-obvious operational detail an agent could not infer.

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 but front-loaded: the field enumeration comes first, then the routing condition, then exclusions, then return behavior. Every sentence earns its place, though the opening enumeration is long enough to be a little heavy for a single unbroken paragraph.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with nested settings, the description covers scope, trigger, exclusions, partial-application semantics, and return handling even though an output schema exists. Nothing material an agent needs before calling 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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description goes further: frameIds/filterIds replace the draft's list, aiEffectTitle as an empty string removes the prior effect, and the slug is availability-checked ('a taken one is reported, not stored'). These add semantics beyond the schema text.

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+resource ('Change a booth draft') and then enumerates exactly which settings it covers, so the agent knows the scope without opening the schema. It is clearly distinguished from refine_booth (AI welcome art) and from dashboard-only concerns (prices/packages).

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 routing: 'Use it after check_generation shows the draft and the operator asks for one of these', plus two named exclusions with alternatives ('cannot change... use refine_booth', 'prices or packages are set in the dashboard'). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both present.

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