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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false. The description adds a genuinely important behavioral trait beyond the annotations: changes are not live until publish_territories is called, revealing a draft/staging model. It still omits auth requirements and whether postcodes append to or replace the existing set.

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 tight sentences with no waste. The core operation and its two modes are front-loaded, and the staging caveat follows immediately.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete, covering purpose, modes, and the publish dependency. It could be improved by clarifying append-vs-replace semantics, but nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents id, op, and postcodes in detail, including the include/exclude default and the free-text splitting behavior. The description restates the include/exclude concept but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource — adding postcodes to a territory — and immediately clarifies the two operating modes ('Grant (include) or carve out (exclude)'). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like create_territory or delete_territory without opening a 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?

The description provides a clear workflow context by naming publish_territories as the step required to make changes live, which tells the agent this is a staging operation. However, it doesn't state explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., whether another tool adds postcodes differently).

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