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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description is consistent with that. It adds real behavioral context by tying each state to the user-visible board concept and its side condition (snoozed takes days, skipped needs a reason), though it says nothing about permissions or what is returned.

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?

A single tight sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the states with parenthetical qualifiers. Every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

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 state-transition tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers all statuses and their conditions. The only omission is any indication of what the call returns or whether a subsequent get_play is needed to see the new state.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value by binding parameters to states — establishing that snoozed is the case for snooze_days and skipped the case for reason. It does not clarify default snooze behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Change a growth play's state') and maps the tool to the visible board in the app, so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling complete_play, which appears to overlap with the 'done' transition.

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?

Each status value is glossed with intent ('start it', 'park it for later', 'skip it for good', 'reopen it', 'finish it'), which tells the agent which state fits which situation. It stops short of naming alternatives such as complete_play or explaining when not to use this tool.

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