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

Annotations already convey readOnly=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: URL values become clickable buttons, non-URLs render as plain text, and remove=true reverses the operation. It does not add much about overwrite or consequence depth, but the core behavior is clear.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, with every sentence earning its place: scope, URL behavior, sibling exclusion, and remove mode. No filler or redundant restatement of 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?

Given the 7-parameter schema, the description covers the crucial distinctions and behavioral cases an agent needs to select and call the tool correctly. It could be more explicit about overwrite behavior for an existing key, but the schema plus annotations cover the remaining operational details reasonably well.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents all parameters. The description reinforces the value semantics (URL vs plain text) and the remove flag, but it does not meaningfully add information beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Put the same extra field on many locations at once.' It also differentiates itself from tag_locations by explicitly stating it is NOT for tags or categories, so an agent can distinguish it from that sibling.

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 explicitly states when not to use the tool ('NOT for tags or categories') and names the alternative ('use tag_locations for those'). It also clarifies the remove mode for taking fields off, giving clear decision context.

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