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

Annotations already cover openWorld, idempotency, and destructiveness. The description adds valuable behavior beyond them: demotion of any existing primary and the invariant that at most one profile is primary per workspace. It does not cover permissions or edge cases, but the side effect is well disclosed.

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, both front-loaded and free of filler. The primary action comes first, followed by the key invariant.

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 simple one-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It communicates purpose, side effect, and invariant, though it lacks usage context or error behavior details.

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%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Promotes an Ideal Customer Profile to the workspace's active one.' The demotion side effect further clarifies scope and distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_primary_icp.

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?

The description explains what the tool does but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It does not say when to use set_primary_icp instead of update_icp or get_primary_icp.

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