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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the operation is free and instant, edits/colours/props are preserved per look, and all animations remain valid. It does not cover permissions, error behavior for an unknown look name, or whether switching affects anything else.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action and accepted values front-loaded; the trailing clauses about per-look state and animations earn their place. Slightly dense with parenthetical nesting, but no wasted text.

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-parameter switch with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers values, effects and cost well, but omits the meaning of 'id' and what happens on an invalid look name, leaving gaps an agent may need to discover by trial.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for 'look' (its accepted values and where they come from) but says nothing about 'id', leaving the agent to infer it is the mascot identifier.

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 ('make one of the mascot's looks current by name') and immediately enumerates the valid values ('Original' or a variant). An agent can distinguish this from edit_mascot, recolor_mascot and get_mascot without opening any 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?

Gives clear context for use (switching the active look) and routes the agent to siblings: get_mascot to list looks and edit_mascot to create a variant by variant_name. It never states an explicit when-not-to-use case, which keeps it short of a 5.

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