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

Annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld) cover the safety profile, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: published Looks join the Community library under @username, publication earns 10 credits, and a Look showing an artist returns 409. Auth requirements and the response body are not described, keeping it below 5.

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, and each sentence contributes distinct value (effect, side effect, error condition). No filler.

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 simple two-param mutation with an idempotent annotation and no output schema, the description covers the outcome, the community-library consequence, and the 409 edge case. Only the auth/return behavior is left implicit, which is minor here.

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 coverage is 50% and the visibility enum already enumerates public/private, so the description adds little syntactic meaning beyond restating those values. The look_id parameter is documented in the schema, and the description does not extend it.

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+resource ('Make one of your Looks public or private') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like rename_look and delete_look. An agent can identify the operation without opening 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?

The description makes clear this is the tool for toggling Look visibility, and context signals show no obvious alternative sibling. It gives the effect of each choice but does not explicitly name when-not to use it or a substitute tool.

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