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

Adds genuinely useful, non-annotation context: partial-update semantics ('Only the fields sent are changed') and account-wide scope shared across websites. However, annotations flag destructiveHint=true and the description never warns what is destroyed — e.g., whether array fields like testimonials or pricingTiers are replaced wholesale — nor does it mention permissions or return behavior.

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 behavioral constraints are front-loaded, but the second sentence is promotional filler ('highest-leverage thing you can write here... tedious for a person') that consumes space without helping the agent call the tool. Tightening it would leave room to describe the actual fields.

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?

A destructive, zero-required-parameter mutation with six fields, low schema coverage, and no output schema needs far more than this. An agent still cannot tell how to phrase valueProps vs about, what ids are needed for testimonials, or what the call overwrites.

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 only 17% and the description compensates barely at all: it never mentions about, valueProps, designDirection, or the required id/name/price/quote structure of the nested arrays. The one hint ('testimonials and prices come from the owner') gives content provenance but no format guidance, so most of the six parameters remain undocumented.

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 the AI context') and hints at the resource's role ('improves every generation'), which lets an agent distinguish it from read_ai_context. It never defines what an AI context actually contains or how it relates to brand/project data, so the purpose is clear but under-specified.

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 a real prerequisite ('cannot be changed from a connection limited to one website'), which is useful routing information, but the rest is advocacy ('highest-leverage thing you can write') rather than when-to-use vs when-not. No alternatives to update_brand or plan_site_strategy are named.

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