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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description adds the crucial mitigation that only display lineage is rewritten and no new run is triggered, which materially changes how risky the call looks. It also discloses the failure contract (`{ ok: false, error }`) and the required user-facing behavior on error. It does not say whether the change is reversible or what permissions are needed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its side-effect scope before the error protocol. The final sentence is long but every clause (explain, ask user, don't retry) carries distinct instruction.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, side effect, error shape, and corrective action — enough to call it safely. Missing pieces are success-response shape and confirmation of what happens to dependent prompts/runs bound to the deprecated model.

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 only 40%, and the description never mentions advertiserProjectId, fromModelId, or toModelId by name. It does implicitly map 'deprecated model' → fromModelId and 'supported successor' → toModelId, which is real semantic value, but the project scoping parameter remains undocumented in both places.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Convert a deprecated AI Visibility model on a project to a supported successor model') plus an explicit scope boundary ('Updates display lineage only; does not trigger a new run') that separates it from siblings like create-llm-run. An agent can tell exactly what state changes and what does not.

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?

Implies the trigger condition (a model is deprecated and must move to a supported successor) and gives explicit failure-handling guidance: explain the error, ask the user to resolve it, do not retry blindly. It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g. list-llm-models to discover successors) or stating prerequisites such as project permissions.

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