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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral details about override semantics and field omission. The behavior is fully disclosed; no hidden side effects are implied. A small deduction because it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive, but the annotation covers that.

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?

The description is compact and information-dense, using a parallel structure that makes the two modes (with/without deck) and the sentinel behavior easy to parse. No redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the straightforward semantics of setting limits, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, how the deck parameter changes behavior, how to clear an override, and how omitted fields are handled. No additional context is needed.

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?

All three parameters are described both in the schema and in the description, with the special -1 meaning for deck overrides and the distinction between account-level and deck-level application. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the context-dependent behavior of 'deck' and the sentinel value.

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 clearly states the tool's function ('Change daily study limits') and distinguishes it from related operations by specifying the account-default versus deck-override distinction. It is immediately obvious how this differs from 'get_limits' or other sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use with or without a deck, describes the -1 sentinel for clearing overrides, and notes that omitted fields are left unchanged. This provides complete guidance for correct invocation without needing external context.

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