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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-schema prerequisite — the user must have confirmed the change — which is the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot express. It stops short of saying that supplied fields overwrite existing values and that omitted fields are left untouched, which for a destructive update would be useful.

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, the exclusion and alternative both front-loaded relative to any ambiguity. Every clause carries actionable information; nothing is padding.

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 rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the remaining gap is small. The description covers identity, prerequisites, and alternatives; it omits only overwrite semantics and multi-brand targeting, the latter of which the brand parameter already documents.

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 100%, with each of the six parameters explaining defaults, limits, and enum-like category values (including fallback behavior). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('change a Prompt or Skill they already saved') and enumerates the mutable fields (name, description, text). It is immediately distinguishable from save_prompt and save_skill, which it names explicitly.

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 both the when ('user asks to change something already saved', 'after they have confirmed') and the when-not ('Do not use it to save something new'), and routes to the correct alternatives by name. No inference required.

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