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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: that data in TradieBridge is changed and that tenant scoping is implicit from the token. It does not describe reversibility or response behavior, which keeps it below 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by the two most useful details (mutation and tenant scoping) and the argument-shaping rule. Slightly dense in the middle with the inline JSON examples, but every sentence carries information.

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 generic dispatch tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation source, mutation semantics, tenant scoping, and argument shape, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. It omits what the call returns and how destructive effects are surfaced, a minor gap given the generic 'params' contract.

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 100% and both parameters are documented, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's generic 'Arguments for the operation' by explaining argument shaping: path args at the top level and write fields nested under the key discover_operations printed, with concrete JSON examples.

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 ('Run one of the write or destructive operations') and ties the tool to its discovery source (discover_operations), which cleanly separates it from call_read_operation in the sibling list. An agent can tell what it does and where the valid operation names come from.

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?

It clearly states the prerequisite (operations must come from discover_operations, with the arguments it named) and adds a useful constraint ('You never name a company: the tenant comes from your token'). It never explicitly names call_read_operation as the read-only alternative, so the when-not guidance is implied rather than stated.

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