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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful approval context: sharing changes need review and business workflow approvals always apply, which an agent needs before invoking. It still omits concrete side effects such as what happens when visibility is disabled.

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 the core action front-loaded and no filler. The approval caveats are relevant, though the wording is somewhat terse and could be clearer about invocation impact.

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 and annotations reduce the need to explain returns and safety, but the description still omits parameter semantics and when-to-use routing for a nested mutation tool with 0% schema coverage. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 provides no information about siteId, documentId, or the nested data fields showInPortal, portalVisibility, and vendorIds. For a three-required-parameter mutation with a nested object, this leaves parameter meaning entirely to the bare schema.

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 opens with a concrete verb and target ('Change vendor portal visibility'), so the action is identifiable. However, it does not explicitly say it applies to a site document or name a sibling such as set_document_folder_visibility, leaving differentiation mostly to the tool name.

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?

It warns that sharing changes require review and that approvals apply, but never states when to use this tool versus get_site_document_visibility or set_document_folder_visibility. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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