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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses important mutation semantics: only sent fields change, but sending steps or branch replaces the whole part. It also explains the DRAFT-only constraint and that existing enrolments keep their original plan.

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 front-loaded with the core action and is only four tight sentences. Each sentence adds operational value: scope, partial-update rule, activation constraint, and enrolment behavior.

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 destructive, nested update tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key constraints an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only notable gap is that widgetId remains opaque, but this does not undermine the main mutation semantics.

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%, so the description carries much of the parameter meaning. It clearly explains the high-risk replacement behavior for steps and branch and partial-update semantics for omitted fields, though widgetId and name remain unaddressed.

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 specific verb and resource ('Change a DRAFT sequence') and immediately scopes it to DRAFT sequences rather than active ones. It also distinguishes the tool from activation and pausing siblings by naming pause_sequence and activate_sequence.

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 explicitly says the tool cannot edit an active sequence and provides the alternative workflow: pause with pause_sequence, edit, then start again with activate_sequence. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to named alternatives.

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