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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is 'confirm-gated' (requires explicit confirmation to execute) and creates a habit per client, which is a mutation. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors like idempotency, error handling, or limits.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key behavior. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the core action but misses details such as what the preview returns, error scenarios, or constraints. It is adequate but has clear gaps for an agent to use without further information.

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 only 33% (only the 'confirm' parameter has a description). The description does not add meaning for 'masterHabitId' or 'clientIds' beyond the vague phrase 'one or more clients'. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Assign' and resource 'Master Habit', and clarifies that it creates a habit per client. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_habit' (single habit creation) and 'create_master_habit' (master template creation).

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 description implies a confirm-gated two-step process, which suggests when to use it (when assigning a master habit to multiple clients) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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