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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains why the tool is destructive and non-idempotent, clarifies that delete only unpins the resource and leaves the check/group untouched, and describes return behavior for create and delete. It also discloses scope and role requirements.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then proceeds action by action. Every sentence supplies actionable context about behavior, alternatives, or permissions, with no filler.

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 nine parameters, three actions, and existing annotations and output schema, the description covers the missing behavioral context: action semantics, side effects, return shapes, authorization requirements, and the read alternative. Nothing essential for correct invocation is omitted.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameters, but the description adds action-dependent semantics: create requires exactly one of checkUid or checkGroupUid, update requires resourceUid and preserves omitted fields, and delete unpins. It does not add much beyond the schema for fields such as position, publicName, or explanation.

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 specific verbs ('pin, edit or unpin') and a precise resource ('a check or a check group') in a status page section. It also maps each action to its effect, making the tool clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_status_page and manage_status_page_section.

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?

It explicitly states what each action does and names the alternative for reading resources: get_status_page include=resources. It also states the required mcp scope and user role, so an agent knows both how and when it may be used.

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