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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that this is a WRITE, human-gated operation, that clients without elicitation pass through, that it never reaches Stripe or changes amounts/limits/billing, that it is reversible by calling again, and that setting a flag false removes the key rather than storing false.

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 long but front-loads the core action and then layers behavioral and workflow details in a logical order. Most sentences earn their place, though the density and multiple parenthetical asides make it slightly heavy rather than maximally concise.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, side effects, formatting convention, and required follow-up sync steps very well. The main gap is that it never accounts for the app_id or dry_run parameters, so an agent lacks full parameter context despite the otherwise comprehensive operational detail.

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 0%, so the description must explain all six parameters. It gives rich meaning for name, is_elite, and recommended, and implies tier via "list_plans first for tier slugs," but it never explains app_id or dry_run, leaving two parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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: set an existing tier's display metadata, naming the exact fields (name, is_elite, recommended) and their visual effects on the pricing page. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_plan_limits and update_plan_pricing by focusing on display metadata rather than money or limits.

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 explicit when-to-use context: repair a catalog whose top tier lacks the is_elite flag, use list_plans first for slugs and current flags, and run bun run plans:sync afterwards. It also states the one-is_elite/one-recommended convention and that the tool does not clear siblings, so a second call is required to unset the old holder.

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