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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description elaborates: it upserts changed operations and prunes dropped ones, and clarifies it only restores discoverability, not forwarding of unknown params. This goes beyond annotations to explain side effects and limitations.

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?

Dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, use case, constraints, and behavior. It's front-loaded with the core action and then elaborates. No 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?

Covers purpose, when to use, constraints, and effects. It lacks an explicit success/failure return description, but given no output schema and the focus on mutation, it's sufficient. The unknown-value return behavior is noted. Could mention confirmation of refresh, but not essential.

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 already fully documents the single parameter `service` with examples and unknown-value behavior, so description adds little new about the parameter itself. It does add context about server-side allowlist, but that's more tool behavior than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 're-ingest', a resource 'first-party plane's LIVE /openapi.json', and an outcome 'into the operator catalog'. It explicitly contrasts with scheduled sync and search_catalog showing old schema, so it's clear what problem it solves.

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 it's the fix for when search_catalog shows old schema, and that it makes new endpoints discoverable immediately vs scheduled sync. Also states constraints: must be allowlisted plane, OpenAPI URL is server-side, unknown value returns full list. This clearly tells an agent when to use it.

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