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

Annotations already declare mutation, idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds useful detail that params are merged and that the effect can be enabled/disabled, plus a pointer to return behavior, but does not explain permission needs or full side effects.

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 definition is two short sentences with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded before the return-value note. Every phrase contributes to understanding.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values or mutation risk. However, the description lacks context around preview behavior, required identifiers, and sibling differentiation, leaving gaps for a five-parameter mutation tool.

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 60%, so some parameters are already documented. The description clarifies that params are merged and that the tool can turn the effect on/off, but it does not explain filter_id, preview modes, or the required timeline handle beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action: change an effect's params or toggle it on/off. It clearly distinguishes mutation of an existing filter from creation or removal, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like filter.add or filter.remove.

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?

Usage is implied by the described operations, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use filter.set versus filter.add, filter.remove, or text.set. The agent must infer the appropriate context.

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