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

With only idempotentHint provided in annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it requires merchant:manage, performs a replacement of the worker profile, and explicitly clarifies that public declarations do not set prices, assign tasks, or authorize payments. It could further describe the impact of replacement on existing capabilities, but the added context is substantial.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The replacement action and key constraints are front-loaded, and every sentence adds relevant context.

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 four required parameters, a nested capabilities array, and no output schema, the description adequately covers permissions and the non-transactional nature of the declaration. However, it does not fully compensate for the 0% schema description coverage, especially for the nested capability fields and the omitted 'description' parameter.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It names three top-level concepts (capabilities, accepting/paused availability, discovery opt-in) but omits the required 'description' parameter and provides no guidance on the nested capability object fields such as inputDescription, resultDescription, or resultContentTypes. This leaves significant parameter ambiguity.

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, 'Replace', and names the affected resource components: worker capabilities, availability, and discovery opt-in. It implicitly distinguishes this mutation tool from the sibling retrieval tools like get_my_worker_profile, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 states a concrete prerequisite ('Requires merchant:manage') and clarifies what the tool does not do: no prepared artifact is needed, and public declarations do not set a price, assign a task, or authorize payment. It gives useful context but does not explicitly compare against sibling tools such as get_my_worker_profile.

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