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

Beyond the annotations (which only mark it idempotent, non-readonly, non-destructive), it discloses the concrete consequences of publishing: credit reward, listing in the Community library under the caller's @username, and the failure condition for Looks showing an artist. This is meaningful side-effect and outcome detail an agent cannot get from the schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and consequence, with zero filler. The parenthetical credit and 409 notes are compact and informative.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers purpose, consequence, and the key error case. It could mention the return/state on success, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 only 50%, but the description compensates by explaining what the two visibility states actually mean behaviorally (public joins the Community library for a credit cost; artist Looks stay private). It adds real meaning to the enum values rather than restating them.

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 (make public/private) and a specific resource (a Look), and the title reinforces it. It is easily distinguished from siblings like rename_look or delete_look.

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 clear context: do this to publish (earning 10 credits) or unpublish, and notes the effective when-not case where an artist-containing Look cannot be made public (409). It doesn't name an alternative tool, but the when/when-not conditions are explicit.

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