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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the two-principal approval rule for close, the confirm=true single-principal path, that close writes an Articles receipt, that writes require write scope, and that the operation is not idempotent. These are exactly the governance, auth, and side-effect facts an agent needs. It does not describe what happens to a campaign's contents on close or how failures surface.

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-loads the resource definition, then the read alternative, then the action list, then the mutation constraints. Every clause carries distinct information — action names, parameter bindings, approval rules, receipt side effect, scoping — with no filler.

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 nine-parameter, eight-action mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations beyond safety flags, the description covers permissions, idempotency, and the tricky approval flow. Gaps remain: what the list/get actions return, what happens to content inside a closed campaign, and error behavior.

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 each parameter already carries a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by mapping parameters to actions (open takes name/purpose, park takes reason, propose_close takes outcome_draft, reassign_owner takes to), but the schema's own field descriptions already state those same bindings.

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 ('Change a Campaign') and immediately defines the domain object as 'a named workstream inside a Space'. It then enumerates every supported action and routes reads to the sibling tools list_campaigns and get_campaign, so an agent can distinguish it from those siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says 'For reads prefer list_campaigns and get_campaign' and gives per-action conditions for reassign_owner ('when the owner seat is revoked or you own it') and close (approval by a different principal, or confirm=true when a single principal remains). The only softness is the residual overlap between the 'get'/'list' actions in the enum and the preferred read siblings, which leaves a small ambiguity about which path to take.

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