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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/non-idempotent profile is covered. The description usefully adds that expectedRevision drives optimistic concurrency and that the new revision is returned, but silent on what happens on a revision mismatch or the auth/session requirement (left to the schema).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the payload/return details parenthetically appended. No filler, though embedding the raw endpoint and JSON body is slightly noisy for an agent-facing description.

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 non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema and 75% of parameters undocumented in the schema, the description omits conflict-handling behavior, whether both switches must be supplied together, and the session/auth requirement. Not enough for an agent to invoke it confidently beyond the happy path.

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 25% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does not: it merely echoes showIdentity, showSize, and expectedRevision as payload keys without explaining what toggling identity or size visibility means or how the revision guard behaves. Only the 'social' cookie is documented, and that is in 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?

States a specific verb ('change') and resource ('squad privacy switches') and even names the endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling memeswap_squad_privacy, which an agent could easily confuse with this write operation.

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?

'Use to change...' gives implied usage context but no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the read counterpart (memeswap_squad_privacy), and no prerequisites such as needing a valid social session or an up-to-date revision. Usable but leaves routing to inference.

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