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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent and destructive, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description adds real value by bounding the mutation ('does not whitelist, kick or ban') and disclosing the return ('Returns the server'). It leaves implicit why destructiveHint is set for a notice clear (the cleared notice presumably can't be restored).

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the boundary, then the alternative and the return value. No wasted words.

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 single nested-object parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers action, non-effects, the alternative path, and the return value. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% at the top level, so the description should compensate, and it doesn't explain 'path' or how serverId/playerName are sourced. The nested schema properties do carry their own descriptions (id from listServers, name from joinAttempts), which keeps this at an adequate 3 rather than lower.

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 object ('Clears the notice') and immediately scopes it with negatives ('does not whitelist, kick or ban'), so the agent cannot confuse it with updateServer or moderation actions. The distinction from the closest sibling is made explicit.

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?

Names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'To let them in, add them to whitelist with updateServer.' Clear routing guidance, though it doesn't state the trigger for using this tool itself (e.g., a stale notice after the player was already handled).

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