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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true but don't explain the consequence; the description supplies it precisely—the old address stops working and the live site moves immediately, versus merely reserving the name when unpublished. This is exactly the behavioral context beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Two dense sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action then the consequence and the approval gating. Every clause earns its place.

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 2-param tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the essential unknowns: irreversibility of the live move, the prerequisite check, and the approval requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and both params are documented ('Project UUID', 'New subdomain, without .misar.app'). The description's '<subdomain>.misar.app' phrasing reinforces the format but adds little beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('move') and resource ('a project to a new <subdomain>.misar.app address'), clearly distinguishing this rename-subdomain operation from siblings like set_custom_domain or update_project. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 names the prerequisite alternative ('check it first with check_subdomain') and gives a conditional rule: get explicit user approval when the app is published. Both when-to-use and a critical gating condition are stated.

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