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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds substantial context beyond that: edits return proposed documents rather than mutating, execution may incur compute, synchronous timeouts are not proof of completion and must not be auto-retried, binary exports/live streams use separate transports. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs before invoking a non-idempotent dispatcher.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action, then sequencing, then caveats — a sensible order. It runs long (seven sentences) and compresses several distinct topics (Studio lifecycle, compute cost, timeout semantics, transports) into one block, but nearly every sentence carries an actionable fact rather than restating the name.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the lifecycle, side effects, cost, retry safety and downstream tools thoroughly for a non-idempotent open-world dispatcher. The remaining gap is parameter-level documentation, which is absent from both schema and description.

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 0% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'explicit controls are forwarded unchanged through the engineering API' clarifies that body/path_parameters are passed through opaquely, and the emphasis on a 'full schema' and 'discovered' operation implies name selects from discovered operations. It does not explain the name pattern/limits, path_parameters substitution, or the body shape, which the schema alone leaves unlabeled.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Call a discovered native design operation with its full schema') and positions it relative to siblings: get_design_operation_schema to read first, create_geometry to persist, publish_design_batch/finish_design_draft for Studio drafts. An agent can distinguish this generic dispatcher from the schema-reader and the artifact-saving tools without opening any schema.

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 an explicit prerequisite ('Read get_design_operation_schema first') and a concrete conditional workflow: for Studio drafts, publish each validated intermediate with publish_design_batch then finish_design_draft; for saved artifacts, submit a self-contained document via create_geometry. It also states a negative boundary — this call alone does not change a Studio project or approve a design.

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