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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description is consistent with that (it is a mutation, not a run). But the annotations say the operation is destructive and the description never says what is destroyed: whether tagNames replace or append to existing tags, whether omitting funnelStage leaves it untouched, or whether the prompt set is overwritten wholesale. For a destructive batch mutation of up to 100 prompts, that omission is a real gap.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the scoping caveat. Nothing is repeated from 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?

Four required parameters, a nested object array, no output schema, and a destructive annotation — the description should carry more weight than two sentences. An agent still cannot tell whether tags merge or overwrite, what an empty/null funnelStage does, or what a partial failure across 100 prompts returns.

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 50% — context and llm_model are documented, but the nested prompts array (promptId, tagNames, funnelStage) has no descriptions at all. The description mentions "tags and funnel stage" generically but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already shows: it does not explain null funnelStage, tag replacement behavior, the 20-tag/50-char caps, or the 100-prompt batch limit.

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 pair ("Set tags and funnel stage") and a specific resource ("existing AI Visibility prompts"), which separates it from the add-llm-prompt / add-llm-prompts creation siblings. The negative clause "Does not start an analysis run" further rules out create-llm-run. It never names or distinguishes itself from the near-duplicate sibling set-prompt-funnel-stages, so it stops short of a 5.

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 word "existing" implies prompts must already exist, and "Does not start an analysis run" is an explicit when-not. However, no alternative is named, and given a sibling literally called set-prompt-funnel-stages, an agent has no stated basis for choosing between them — that is the single most important routing decision here.

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