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 traits: the operation is confirm-gated (preview vs execute) and it replaces the entire text rather than merging. It omits required permissions/role and any rate or side-effect detail beyond the overwrite, so disclosure is useful but incomplete.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the confirm-gate caveat, then the overwrite warning. 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the destructive overwrite behavior and the confirm gate, which are the key facts an agent needs. Permissions and the exact preview return shape are unaddressed, but the schema's confirm description covers the preview mechanic.

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% (just confirm), so the description must compensate. "Replaces the whole text" adds genuine semantic meaning for the guidelines parameter, but organizationId is left entirely implicit and no format guidance is given for the guidelines string, so compensation is partial.

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 ("Set") and a precisely scoped resource: the gym-wide rules the AI assistant and AI coach follow for every coach and client. It is clearly differentiated from neighboring update_organization_* tools and names get_organization_profile as the related read, so an agent can place it without opening any 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 routes the agent to read get_organization_profile first "to edit rather than overwrite," which is real when-to-use guidance and effectively names the alternative. It stops short of stating when to avoid the tool entirely (e.g. permissions or scope limits), so it is short of a full 5.

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