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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about null clearing semantics, but says nothing about what happens to the prior role or whether the person must already be attached to the node.

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 short sentences, both earning their place, with the primary action stated first and the edge-case (null) instruction second. No filler or redundancy.

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 destructive 5-parameter mutation with 40% schema coverage and no output schema, the description handles the role parameter and clearing semantics but omits scope parameters (orgId, teamId) and any note about side effects or prerequisites.

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 only 40% (nodeId and personId documented, orgId/teamId/role not). The description compensates well for `role` by explaining the null-clearing behavior and giving an example value, but leaves orgId and teamId entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (Change) and a precisely scoped resource (the role a person plays in the process behind a landscape node), with a concrete example ("Approver"). It is clearly distinguishable from add/removeClarityLandscapeNodePerson and updateClarityLandscapeNode, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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 instruction 'Send role: null to clear it' is genuine usage guidance for the clearing case, but there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over siblings like addClarityLandscapeNodePerson or updateClarityLandscapeNode, and no prerequisites or permission context.

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