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

Beyond the destructiveHint and openWorldHint annotations, it explains that only listed languages change while other languages keep their text, that a preview/confirm workflow is required, that preview_id is needed for confirmation, and that apply_at supports scheduled changes. This is strong behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 dense but front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then layers in language behavior, prerequisites, preview/confirmation, plan constraints, and scheduling. Every sentence maps to an agent decision or user-safety requirement.

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 complex multilingual mutation with no output schema, the description covers the necessary workflow: prerequisites, preview behavior, explicit approval, confirmation mechanics, plan limitations, and scheduled application. Item limits and field constraints are left to the schema, which is appropriate.

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 already 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema by explaining the translations object with an example, the language-only update behavior, and the confirm/preview_id/apply_at workflow semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it saves product names, descriptions, short descriptions, and SEO text across one or more languages. It clearly distinguishes the tool from broader update tools by emphasizing multilingual product content and the translations object.

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 explicit workflow guidance: call get_brand_voice first, use translation_gaps to find missing text, preview before confirming, show the preview to the user, get explicit approval, and only then call again with confirm=true. It also states the paid-plan restriction and how to schedule later with apply_at.

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