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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description earns that by specifying the blast radius — the saved definition is replaced wholesale on every dashboard showing the query, so partial specs are dangerous. It also notes the change is saved immediately when the tool runs and that reason appears on the approval card, which is context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the workflow rules follow in order. Dense but nearly every clause is actionable; the explicit load_skill call syntax is mildly verbose but needed for the agent to follow it correctly.

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 destructive, deeply nested mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the read-modify-write workflow, the removal of queryType, validation via run_heatmap_query, and the replacement scope. It stops short of describing what the call returns or how to confirm the update landed.

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 86% schema coverage the schema already documents most fields, but the description adds operational meaning: spec must be the complete definition with queryType stripped, and reason must be one sentence written for the approval card. It does not add much beyond the schema for queryId, projectId, environment, or name.

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?

"Replace the definition of a saved heatmap query (and optionally rename it)" gives a specific verb and resource, and it is immediately distinguishable from create_heatmap_query and run_heatmap_query, which are named later in the text as workflow steps.

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?

The description prescribes the exact sequence: read with get_query, change only what the user asked for, dry-run with run_heatmap_query, then call this tool; it also directs the agent to load_skill("manage-dashboards") and load_skill("heatmap-queries") first. When-to-use and the alternatives are both explicit.

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