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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the change takes effect on the live locator immediately, which tells the agent this is a production-affecting write rather than a staged draft edit.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the live-application caveat placed second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 single-enum, mutation-flagged tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is being set and that it applies immediately. The one real gap is whether this interacts with the draft/publish workflow implied by siblings like propose_configuration, publish_territories and rollback_configuration.

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%, and the schema itself spells out each enum value (off, preferred, exclusive, fallback) in more detail than the description does. The description merely re-lists the four values, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ("Choose how territories affect a visitor's results") and names all four mode values, so the agent immediately knows the operation is a territory-scoping configuration switch. It does not explicitly contrast itself with adjacent setters like set_spotlight_rule_enabled or set_tag_style, but the territory framing is distinctive enough to separate it.

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?

Usage is only implied: the four modes and their effect on visitor results suggest when each choice is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g. versus explain_territory_owner or publish_territories). An agent can infer intent but is not told the conditions under which this tool should be preferred.

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