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

Annotations declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, and the description adds real blast-radius context: the change pushes to every connected game server immediately and replaces the current primary. It also discloses the no-op case and the runtime timing ('the switch happens when this runs'), which annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and immediately followed by impact, then the no-op edge case and the reason requirement. Each sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the name or title.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, blast radius, idempotency, and the reason requirement, which is close to sufficient. It omits that the change appears to go through an approver (implied by the reason parameter's schema text) and says nothing about permissions or whether the switch can be reverted.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, including that reason is shown to the approver. The description only reinforces that reason must always be supplied and is recorded with the change, adding minor meaning over 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 and resource with explicit scope: make a given configuration the project's primary configuration in a named environment. An agent can distinguish this from update_configuration or create_configuration without opening the schema. It stops short of naming a sibling to contrast with explicitly.

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 clear operating context: the call is a no-op if the configuration is already primary, and the agent must tell the user which configuration is being replaced. It does not mention alternatives (e.g., use update_configuration for non-primary changes) or prerequisites, so there is a small inference gap.

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