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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description details the exact destructive behavior: omitted products are deleted and an empty list clears the catalog. It also discloses the checksum-based refusal mechanism, which is not covered by annotations and is critical for safe invocation.

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 tightly written sentences with no fluff. The core behavior is front-loaded ('Replace the whole in-app catalog'), followed by the critical consequences and prerequisites. Every clause earns its place.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: the replacement semantics, the destructive deletion behavior, the prerequisite read step, the checksum requirement, and the refusal condition. 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for `products` (the complete catalog, not a patch) and `expectedChecksum` (the checksum from list_in_app_products representing the state to replace), which goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions and clarifies the interplay between 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 states a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('the whole in-app catalog') with an explicit contrast to a patch, making the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishing it from any patch-like sibling. It also explains the destructive consequence of omitting products, which further clarifies the operation.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to read list_in_app_products first and pass its checksum as expectedChecksum, and warns that the call is refused if the catalog changed. It also advises asking the developer before removing products, giving clear when-to-use and cautionary guidance without needing to name alternatives since the prerequisite tool is named.

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