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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond them: a validation gate that rejects non-write tools, and the convention that arguments must conform to the target tool's own schema as returned by find_tools. It stops short of describing failure behavior or partial-application semantics for destructive operations.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: the capability, the acceptance gate plus alternative, then the argument convention. The routing information is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 meta-dispatch tool with no output schema and a fully documented 2-parameter schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: which tools it will accept, where the argument contract comes from, and which sibling to use instead. It could still say what happens when a rejected tool name is passed, but nothing critical to a correct call 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that 'name' is the gateway name of an unlisted write tool, and it explains where the 'arguments' object's shape comes from (the target tool's own input schema, obtainable via find_tools). That resolves the main ambiguity of an open additionalProperties object.

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?

The description states a concrete verb set (creates, changes, deletes, sends, deploys) and the resource (any allowed pack tool, addressed by full gateway name like hub_update_product), and explicitly frames itself as the unlisted counterpart to call_tool. An agent can distinguish it from call_tool and from find_tools without opening any schema.

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 an explicit acceptance rule ('Only tools find_tools marks as writes are accepted') and an explicit alternative with the selecting condition ('read-only tools run through call_tool'). It also points to find_tools as the way to discover the tool and its schema, so both when-to-use and how-to-find are covered.

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