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

Annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false). The description goes well beyond them: it discloses the platform's normalization rules (required=true forces min 1; min>=1 forces required=true; 'Pick one' keeps neither), the fact that contradictions are refused, and that the returned state may differ from the input, advising the agent to read the result. This is exactly the kind of behavior structured fields cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then parameter semantics, then normalization behavior, then the refusal rule. Every clause carries usable information — omit vs null, required/min coupling, contradiction refusal — with no filler or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description explicitly tells the agent that the platform reports what it actually stored and that the agent should read the result rather than assume the input was kept. Combined with the normalization and refusal rules, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the outcome.

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 60% (max, min, categoryModifierId documented; required and sortOrder not). The description compensates by explaining the critical omit-vs-null distinction and the required/min coupling, which are not derivable from the schema. It never explains sortOrder semantics (direction/relative ordering), so it falls one step short of complete.

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 how a modifier is asked) and pins the exact scope: rules for ONE category, leaving every other category alone. That scope distinction is what separates it from the sibling hub_update_modifier, which changes the modifier itself rather than the per-category link.

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 'ONE category — leaving every other category alone' framing tells the agent when this tool is the right one versus editing the modifier globally, and the omit-vs-null rule plus the refusal condition give clear operating context. It stops short of naming an alternative tool explicitly, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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