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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: propagation timing (existing vs. newly launched agents) and an optimistic-concurrency precondition (409 unless expected_current_config_id matches). That last detail is a genuine behavioral disclosure not derivable 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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: the action, the propagation effect, and the failure condition — ordered from most to least central. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 five-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, its effect on dependent agents, and its failure mode. It does not mention authorization requirements or what the response returns, but the return value need not be explained absent an output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for expected_current_config_id — explaining it functions as a compare-and-swap guard whose mismatch triggers a 409. That goes beyond the schema's terse 'Agent config ID' description, though the other four IDs get no added explanation.

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+resource combination ('Points a profile at a different agent config') that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like profiles_rename, profiles_create, and profiles_delete. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Clearly explains the semantics of when the change takes effect (new launches use the new config; existing agents keep theirs) and names the 409 failure precondition. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as profiles_rename or configs_create, so routing between alternatives is implied rather than stated.

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