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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the auth scope requirement, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about the consequences of flipping a roster to 'public' (exposure of data, revertibility) — a notable gap for a destructive write.

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 with zero padding, and the operation is front-loaded before the auth requirement. Efficient, though it is terse to the point of under-specifying parameters.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what it does and the required scope, which is a reasonable minimum. It omits the effect of each visibility value and any warning about public exposure, which an agent would need to act safely.

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 carry the burden, and it does not: neither 'id' (roster identifier) nor 'visibility' (private/unlisted/public semantics and what each means for discoverability) is explained. The enum exists in the schema, but the meaning of each level is left entirely to inference.

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 ('Changes the visibility of an owned roster'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like save_roster or get_my_roster. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 prerequisite 'Requires mcp:write' and the ownership constraint ('owned roster') give implied guidance on when the call is valid. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing or mention of alternatives such as save_roster for other roster edits.

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