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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it doesn't say that supplying an id overwrites existing code, that language is immutable on update, or that a release tag/version is created on insert — all points an agent needs and none of which are stated here.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though the space saved is not spent on the create-vs-update branching or overwrite semantics that would be most valuable.

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 with seven parameters and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable: annotations declare destructiveness and the schema documents most inputs. What is missing is the consequence model — what code gets replaced on update, whether versions are preserved — leaving the agent to infer the impact of an overwrite.

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 86%, so parameter meaning is largely carried by the schema (id omit-to-create, tag rules, language default and immutability on update, description persistence). The description itself adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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 pair and resource ('Create or update transformation') plus the payload type ('custom JavaScript/Python code'), which is enough to distinguish it from read tools like get_transformation or list_transformations. It stops short of naming siblings such as transformation_test_new or sample_transformations, so sibling differentiation is only implicit in the 'upsert' naming.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the useful signal ('Test with transformation_test_new first') lives only in the schema's code parameter description. Nothing tells the agent which alternative to pick for testing versus committing, or how this differs from sample_transformations.

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