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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact — that removal does not delete the operation but returns it to the default product — which annotations alone would not convey. It omits permissions, side effects on existing product membership, and how `kind` affects routing.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the primary action comes first and the secondary mode follows. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse for a tool with a mode toggle and a discriminator enum.

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?

With five parameters, one enum discriminator, and no output schema, the description covers the core operation but leaves the toggle semantics and the hosted/api distinction to the schema. An agent could call it correctly by reading the schema, but the description alone is thin for a mutation that reassigns resources.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description hints at the add/remove duality but never names the `remove` flag, the `kind` enum values, or why `organizationId` is restricted to an approved workspace.

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: add an operation to a product, or move it back to the default product. An agent can grasp the effect without opening the schema. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as update_product or the list_products family, so it stops short of a 5.

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 two modes (add vs. move back to default) are implied, but the description never says which parameter selects the second mode — the agent must infer that `remove=true` does it. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of prerequisites such as organizationId or productId validity.

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