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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: only search max-result/depth keys are affected, security settings are out of scope, and account-bound computer:write OAuth plus possible local owner approval are required. It does not explicitly discuss reversibility or value-range constraints.

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?

The description is three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted wording. Scope, exclusions, prerequisite inspection, and authorization requirements are conveyed efficiently.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers scope, exclusions, prerequisites, and approval requirements. The only notable gap is the potentially misleading reference to get_config instead of the listed exza_get_commander_preferences inspection sibling.

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 schema already documents both parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description clarifies that only maximum-result/depth preferences are relevant, which maps to the enum keys, but it adds no detail about acceptable value ranges or constraints beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: changing only EXZA search maximum-result/depth preferences. The word 'only' narrows scope and excludes device or OAuth security settings, making the tool distinguishable from broader preference or configuration operations. It does not explicitly name the related getter sibling as the inspection alternative, which keeps it from a 5.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite step ('use get_config to inspect current values first') and states that device/OAuth security settings cannot be changed. However, get_config is not present in the supplied sibling list, while exza_get_commander_preferences is; this could misdirect the agent when looking for the inspection tool.

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