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

Annotations already communicate mutation and destructive potential, so the description adds useful context by stating that assignments and grants stay intact on rename. This explains a behavioral consequence beyond what the schema or annotations alone convey, though it doesn't elaborate on all potential side effects.

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?

Two sentences carry substantial, well-organized information: action options, parameter requirements, behavioral note, and pointers to sibling tools. There is no filler and the key distinctions are front-loaded.

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?

Given the 100% schema coverage, output schema availability, and annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It covers the action-dependent requirements and points to the sibling tools for ID discovery and assignment, leaving no significant functional gap.

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 each parameter is already documented individually. The description adds action-conditional meaning, specifying which parameters apply to create versus rename and that parent_category_id is create-only, which helps the agent assemble the correct call.

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?

The description uses a specific verb phrase, 'Creates or renames a display category,' and defines the domain concept by noting categories group displays for broadcast_content include_category_ids. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_display_categories and assign_display_categories.

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 explicitly maps each action to its required parameters ('create' needs name; 'rename' needs category_id and new_name), and directs the agent to sibling tools for related tasks: list_display_categories for discovering IDs and assign_display_categories for assigning displays. This is strong when-to-use guidance.

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