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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds substantial behavior beyond that: the list is private until shared, the tool is additive and low-risk, the call returns status='confirmation_required' with action_id and plan_token, and the write only happens after confirm_action.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then moves through parameters, privacy, risk level, and the confirmation flow. Every sentence carries useful information, and the confirmation behavior is isolated clearly without unnecessary wording.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, privacy behavior, risk profile, and confirmation return flow well. The only meaningful gap is that the title and description parameters are not elaborated beyond the schema, but the schema itself supplies constraints such as maxLength and minLength.

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 needs to compensate by explaining the parameters. It only restates that 'title' is required and 'description' is optional, which the schema's required array already conveys, and adds no field-level meaning, format guidance, or examples beyond the schema constraints. The description adds almost no semantic value for these two parameters.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new wishlist for the caller.' It also distinguishes the creation action from the later sharing action by naming share_wishlist, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening its 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?

The description clearly places creation in context: the wishlist starts private and is shared via share_wishlist, and the tool is proposed rather than executed until confirm_action is used. It does not explicitly state when a different creation path should be preferred, but the confirmation flow and privacy behavior provide strong usage context.

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