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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuine non-annotation context: retire is implemented as a soft deactivation via active:false rather than a deletion, and updates must be expressed as retire+create. It does not mention auth/permission requirements, but the behavioral nuance it does add is real.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and object before the conceptual contrast and the create/retire mechanics. Every sentence carries information about behavior or workflow; no filler. Slightly dense for a single paragraph, but no waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Despite zero required parameters, the description supplies the create-vs-retire parameter recipes, the object model contrast, the linked feedback workflow, and related tools, fully covering what an agent needs to call this correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond it by grouping parameters per mode: phrase+severity for creation, optional feedbackId tied to report_feedback, and id+active:false for retirement. That mapping of parameters to intent is not stated in the schema itself.

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 and resource ('Creates or retires a content exclusion') and immediately defines what the object is ('a literal phrase Mark enforces (block or warn), optionally limited to one channel'). It explicitly contrasts ContentExclusion with BrandProfile prose guidance, so an agent can distinguish it from update_brand_profile without reading schemas.

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?

Gives explicit mode-selection guidance: 'Pass phrase and severity to create... Pass id and active: false to retire.' It also states a hard workflow rule ('exclusions are never edited in place', retire-then-create) and names related tools (get_brand_context, update_brand_profile, report_feedback), covering when this tool applies versus its neighbors.

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