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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, setting a lower bar. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: sharing changes require explicit review, and organization-configurable MCP approvals plus mandatory business workflow approvals apply. It still omits what actually gets mutated (which folders/documents become visible), whether the change is reversible, and any limits.

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 short sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the purpose before the approval caveats. Efficient overall, though the approval notes read as boilerplate that could be tightened.

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?

Output schema presence relieves the description of explaining return values, and annotation coverage of the safety profile helps. But for a mutation tool with a nested parameter object at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the core semantics of the change unexplained, so an agent could not confidently construct the correct call from the description alone.

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%, and the description says nothing about folderId or the nested data object (showInPortal, portalVisibility enum all_vendors/specific_vendors, vendorIds, siteId). With two required parameters including a nested object, the description badly needs to compensate and does not.

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 'Change vendor portal visibility,' which gives a verb plus a resource concept (vendor portal visibility) and usefully clarifies that the visibility is to the vendor portal. However, it never mentions the document-folder scope from the tool name, so it does not distinguish itself from siblings like set_site_document_visibility or get_document_folder_visibility. The purpose is implied but not specific.

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?

'Sharing changes require explicit review' and the approval notes hint at prerequisites, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no guidance on when to pick this over set_site_document_visibility or update_document_folder. An agent is left to infer the usage context.

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