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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the operation requires owner/administrator permissions, and that marking as reviewed or needing changes requires additional review scope. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, and the description doesn't contradict these. It doesn't detail what gets destroyed or the full mutation semantics, but the permission and review-scope disclosure is valuable context that the annotations don't provide.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and scope, and the second adds the critical permission constraint. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, where it operates, and who can use it. The idempotencyKey parameter is well-documented in the schema, and the profile structure is fully defined in the schema. The description doesn't explain what happens on success or failure, but the idempotency hint and schema documentation cover the key operational aspects. The permission requirements are a notable addition that makes this reasonably complete.

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 50%: the idempotencyKey parameter has a rich description in the schema, but the profile parameter has no description beyond its nested properties. The tool description doesn't add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. The profile object's properties are self-descriptive (name, status, cantons, etc.), and the idempotencyKey's schema description is thorough. The description's mention of 'bounded watch profile' and review scope adds some context for the profile parameter, but it doesn't compensate for the missing profile description. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('bounded watch profile in this workspace'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes it from generic save operations by specifying 'bounded watch profile' and 'in this workspace', though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative. The term 'bounded' is somewhat domain-specific but the overall purpose is clear.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: it's for saving a bounded watch profile, and it explicitly states the permission requirements (owner or administrator, plus review scope for certain status changes). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the permission guidance and workspace scoping give useful usage context. The sibling list includes helvabase_opportunity_profiles and helvabase_search_opportunities, but the description doesn't explicitly route between them.

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