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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: hard limits of 30 seconds, 40 API calls, 12,000 characters total output, 3,000 per string and 100 items per array, plus the scope refinement that no deletions occur.

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?

Four tight sentences, no filler. The relationship to the sibling read tool comes first, then the write scope, then the safety constraint, then the operational limits — front-loaded and information-dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing return constraints (size caps per string and array) and points to arcmira_describe for field and result definitions. That covers most of what an agent needs; error surfacing and how partial failures behave are left unstated.

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 parameters (code, intent) are fully described in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the parameters themselves; its mention of the MONITORS section concerns the JavaScript API surface, not the tool's inputs.

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 and resource (runs JavaScript to perform monitor writes) and enumerates the exact write operations available: create, update (including paused), addEntities, addName, attachTrackers. It explicitly positions itself against the sibling arcmira_execute_read, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

Names arcmira_execute_read as the read-only counterpart and routes the agent to the MONITORS section of arcmira_describe for fields and results, which is actionable context. It also states the negative scope ('Nothing is deleted'), but does not spell out a when-not-use condition or permission prerequisites.

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