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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the agent already knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: expectedSpecVersion exists as optimistic-concurrency protection against stale writes. However it omits that passing bubble=null wipes all bubbles and whether the call replaces or merges the layer's bubble config.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose then the key constraint. No filler, nothing redundant with the title.

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 nested-object mutation tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it never states that bubble=null removes all bubbles or whether the update is a full replace of the layer's bubble config. The concurrency note is the one piece of context it contributes; the rest relies on the schema.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0% (projectId and input have no descriptions), so the description must compensate — and it does explain the purpose of expectedSpecVersion. It adds nothing for projectId, and the nested schema's own descriptions (linkFilter, targetSource, artifactsLayer, null-to-remove) carry the rest of the weight.

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: "Configure bubble interactions for a project map." This is clear enough to separate it from sibling configurators like configure_popup and configure_legend, but it never names a sibling or clarifies what 'bubble interactions' means relative to those alternatives.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions beyond a required param, and no routing to alternatives among the many configure_* siblings. The only guidance is that expectedSpecVersion is required, which is a schema constraint restated rather than usage context.

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