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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description's key contribution is the mitigating fact 'Existing artwork is preserved' plus the confirmation checkpoint before saving/checkout. It still omits that supplied design patches can overwrite session content and that openWorld rendering may fetch external URLs, but against full annotation coverage the added context is solid.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then the preservation guarantee, then the operational caution. No filler, though 'Use live product values' is slightly vague for the space it takes.

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 mutating session-edit tool with a heavily documented schema and full annotations, nothing essential is missing: it covers scope, preservation of artwork, and the confirmation gate before persistence. Return-shape detail is legitimately delegated to the session/catalogue payload described in the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description names the editable dimensions (product, colour, sizes, quantities, print areas) but does not clarify the size/sizes and color/colour alias pairs, the meaning of areaId versus printAreas, or what the nested items/product objects accept.

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 concrete verb pair ('choose or change') plus the exact resource set: product, garment colour, sizes, quantities, print areas. An agent knows this is the configuration-editing tool, distinct from creation tools like create_design or discovery tools like discover_products, 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?

'Use live product values; confirm final sizes and quantities before saving or checkout' implies sequencing (use before save_design/create_checkout) but never states when to pick this over change_design or when to run discover_products first. Usage is inferred from the workflow hint rather than spelled out.

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