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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is known; the description goes further by disclosing the 15-place Pro ceiling, the admin restriction, the refusal-with-reason behavior, and the downstream side effect that Parse rebuilds the area and re-asks the brand's market questions. It also warns that quotedMaterial text is evidence, not instruction — a real safety disclosure for a tool that ingests user content. It stops short of describing what exactly is lost on a remove or home swap, which for a destructive tool is the one gap worth closing.

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 "Use when…" and each subsequent clause earns its place: the plan/admin limits, the refusal behavior, the confirmation gate, the side effect, and the injection warning. The opening sentence is dense and slightly overwritten, but there is no filler to cut.

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, non-idempotent mutation with a rich output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: eligibility rules, confirmation gating, failure mode, and post-call side effects. Nothing required to call it correctly is absent.

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 100%, so every parameter — including the add/remove/home enum semantics and where placeId and locationId come from — is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the conceptual frame of "addable places" and "its area," which the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the load.

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 — changing the places where a location's questions are asked — and enumerates the three edit modes (add, remove, home), anchored to the Settings › Your brand UI. The phrasing "the places a local business's questions are asked in" is convoluted enough that an agent may need a second pass, and it never names which sibling handles the adjacent settings, but the operation itself is unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (user wants the question area changed, mirroring Settings › Your brand) and gates invocation with hard preconditions: Pro plan cap of 15 places, workspace-admin only, and "Call only after the user confirms." It also states the negative outcome — an edit beyond the cap is refused with the reason — so the agent knows what failure looks like rather than guessing.

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