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

Annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds that the tool toggles a preference, but it does not mention potential side effects or what happens to currently pending kiss offers. It is adequate for a simple boolean setter but provides limited additional behavioral context.

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 immediately communicates the operation and its dual direction. There is no extraneous content, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 single-boolean setter with annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description and schema together are sufficient. No output schema exists, but the simple boolean operation does not require return-value disclosure to be callable.

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%: the kissable parameter is fully documented as 'true to accept kiss offers, false to refuse them all.' The tool description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Opt out') and identifies the resource ('receiving kisses'), while the parenthetical '(or back in)' clarifies the toggle nature. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like accept_kiss, decline_kiss, and offer_kiss, which are one-off actions rather than preference settings.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to toggle whether you receive kiss offers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the boolean parameter and phrasing make the intended use obvious.

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