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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important behaviors: changes are delayed until the formation is next used, and rationale is logged. It does not explain permissions, reversibility, partial-update semantics, or what happens to unspecified fields.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded: purpose first, then timing behavior, then the rationale requirement and logging consequence. Every sentence adds a distinct piece of information.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no annotation coverage, and no schema parameter descriptions, so the description is too thin to make invocation safe and predictable. The output schema helps with return values, but the input side remains largely unexplained.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description needed to compensate heavily. It explains only rationale, and even then says rationale is REQUIRED while the schema marks it optional with a default, leaving the other 8 parameters undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Edit a saved formation.' This clearly separates it from creation/deletion tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from switch_formation or other formation-management siblings.

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?

It implies that this tool is for editing saved formations whose changes apply later, rather than live field operations. However, it does not explicitly say when to use it versus switch_formation or create_formation, nor does it name exclusions.

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