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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that promoting one profile demotes the existing primary, which is a side effect on a resource the caller did not name. It stops short of stating permission requirements or what happens if the ID is invalid.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the invariant ('at most one primary per workspace') placed second, giving the agent the behavioral consequence exactly where it is needed. No redundant restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential side-effect context and the workspace invariant. It could be complete with a note on failure behavior for unknown or already-primary IDs.

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% and the single 'id' parameter already carries a description pointing to list_icps, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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') and immediately distinguishes this from read-oriented siblings like get_primary_icp by describing the state transition it performs.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for switching the active ICP, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no mention of prerequisites such as the profile already existing, and no comparison to alternatives like update_icp or create_icp.

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