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

Annotations already indicate a write, idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds critical context: it affects only Loomaly settings, has a 300-character limit per field, clearing behavior with empty strings, and a dependency on the focus page's checkup. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loading the main purpose, then adding constraints and scope. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, achieving high information density in a compact form.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, parameter semantics, side effects, dependencies, and scope. An agent has all necessary information to invoke it correctly, including the clearing edge case and the relationship to the focus page checkup.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It explicitly defines offer (what the site sells), customer (to whom), conversion (what counts as a conversion), and implies siteId as the target site. It also specifies length constraints, making all parameters fully understandable.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Save the owner's brief' and enumerates the specific fields (offer, customer, conversion) with their meanings. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_focus_page by targeting the brief specifically, and clarifies it changes settings only, not the website.

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 explains when to use the tool: to set the brief that the focus page's conversion checkup reads, noting that offer and conversion are required. It also specifies the clearing behavior with empty strings and explicitly states it never touches the website, guiding an agent away from using it for website edits.

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