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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds real behavioral value: exactly which artifacts are excluded (participants, results, integrations, language variants, sends), fail-safe handling of unsupported fields and unavailable images, and the invalidation rule when the source changes. It omits permission/auth requirements and what 'queue' returns, keeping it short of a 5.

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 with zero filler: the operation, the exclusion list, and the failure/invalidation behavior, each front-loaded and independently useful. Nothing repeats the schema or annotations.

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 mutation tool covered by annotations and with no output schema, the description addresses copy scope, failure modes and source invalidation well. Gaps remain around the mutating inputs (expected_revision, the source promotion_id) and whether the queued operation returns a handle for get_operation_status.

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 only 20%, so the description must carry the load and largely does not. 'New dates' gestures at schedule, but promotion_id (the source), expected_revision (optimistic concurrency token), name, and idempotency_key receive no explanation, leaving an agent to guess at revision and idempotency semantics that the description implies but never states.

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 and resource: 'Queue a bounded configuration copy with new dates.' The word 'bounded' plus the enumeration of what is not copied cleanly separates this from create_promotion and update_promotion, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 copy scope implies the intended use case (spinning up a similar promotion on a new schedule), but the description never says when to prefer this over create_promotion or update_promotion, nor what prerequisites exist. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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