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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds a partial-update expectation (only touch requested settings) and an authorization restraint tied to the owner, which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it never discloses the consequence of flipping public on a live broadcast, nor whether omitted fields are preserved.

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 short sentences with the field enumeration front-loaded and the constraint trailing. The phrasing 'Change who can watch (public)' is slightly compressed but nothing is wasted.

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?

A seven-parameter mutation tool with 14% schema coverage and no output schema needs more: the required id and key are never described, the 'subscribers' enum value for comments is undisclosed, and the return/confirmation behavior is absent. The description is too thin for this schema complexity.

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?

With only 14% schema coverage, the description carries most of the burden, and it does map four parameters to human meaning: public = 'who can watch', agents = 'whether other agents may use it', comments = 'whether comments are on', contact = 'your contact details'. It leaves id and key entirely unexplained and never mentions that comments also accepts the string 'subscribers', so the compensation is partial.

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 verb 'Change' plus the enumeration of settings (public visibility, contact details, agent access, comments) makes the operation concrete and distinguishable from siblings like delete_broadcast or go_live. It never names a sibling or clarifies which resource instance is being modified, but the intent is clear.

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?

'Only what your owner asks for' is a scope constraint on which fields to touch, not guidance on when to choose this tool over update_profile or review_broadcast. Usage is only implied by the tool's existence.

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