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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral detail: URL values render as clickable buttons versus plain text, and the remove flag performs the destructive operation. It does not mention permission requirements or the batch limit, so it falls short of full behavioral disclosure.

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 action before the exclusion and the removal flag. The aside 'which are a different thing entirely' is slightly padded, but nothing important is buried.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers rendering behavior, removal, and sibling routing, which is enough to call the tool correctly. It omits the 200-location cap (schema handles it) and any failure/partial-success behavior.

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 every parameter is already documented, including the URL-to-button rule and the remove semantics. The description largely restates those same facts (URL becomes a button, remove takes the field off) rather than adding syntax, defaults, or edge cases beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with scope ('Put the same extra field on many locations at once') and grounds it with concrete examples (booking button, social link, labelled fact). It explicitly separates itself from tag_locations, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without reading the 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?

Gives an explicit exclusion ('NOT for tags or categories') paired with the named alternative (tag_locations), plus the conditional action for deletion ('Set remove to true to take the field off instead'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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