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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds non-obvious behavior: plan-disallowed options render locked, the password is typed into the panel and never transits the chat, and the saved result is reported back afterwards. These are things an agent could not infer from annotations or 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?

The verb and resource are front-loaded and every later clause carries actionable information (exclusion case, host caveat, password handling). The settings enumeration is a long run-on list, but it is doing real work rather than 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 one-parameter UI-opening tool with an output schema, the description covers the interaction model, what happens on save, the fallback when MCP Apps is unavailable, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The single catalogId parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, including that ids come from list_catalogs), and the description adds nothing about it. With the schema carrying the full burden, 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?

Opens with a concrete verb and resource ("Open the Publish dialog beside the chat") and enumerates exactly what the panel contains, so an agent knows this is an interactive settings UI rather than a data fetch. It also names the sibling it is not (set_publish_options) for the single-change case.

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?

Explicit selection criteria: use it "when they want to review or change several of these at once, or to set a password," and use set_publish_options instead for "a single change they have already named." The host prerequisite (needs MCP Apps, otherwise text fallback) is also stated, which prevents a failed invocation.

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