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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the Stripe prerequisite and, critically, the downstream effect that bound Cart Buttons charge each row's `price` in minor units or its Stripe price id. It stops short of describing auth scopes or error behavior.

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?

Dense but front-loaded – the core action leads, then the remove inverse, then the mechanics, then the pointer. Slightly cramped in the middle clause ('Cart Buttons in a Data repeater bound to it charge...'), which needs domain familiarity, but no sentence 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?

For a 7-parameter, 1-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the prerequisite, the inverse operation, the charging model, and a docs pointer, while the schema carries the per-field detail. Adequate; only auth/permission scope and failure modes are unaddressed.

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 further by explaining the interaction the schema only hints at: how price vs priceIdField determine what gets charged and that price is in minor units. That relationship-level meaning is beyond the per-field schema text.

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 outcome verb+resource: 'Make a collection sellable through Stripe', with the inverse toggle (remove: true) called out inline. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like set_download, set_portal, or stripe_connect without opening any 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?

Gives a hard prerequisite ('Needs stripe_connect') and routes to get_style_reference for details, which is real usage context. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it or contrast it explicitly against the other set_*/stripe_* tools.

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