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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the asynchronous model ('Returns at once'), the AI agent that views photographs, and that it 'places everything and saves' (a mutation). Permissions, overwrite semantics, and failure modes are left unstated, keeping it short of 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action and ends with the essential follow-up call. The parenthetical catalog of content types is long but informative; the piece is one dense flow rather than broken into scannable units.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the async behavior, the follow-up call, and the content scope an agent needs. Return-value detail is minimal, but 'Returns at once' plus the wait_for_tour pointer covers the essentials.

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?

The 'request' parameter has no schema description, and the description compensates by enumerating what a plain request can express (stops/text, hidden objects/clues, models, effects, sound, music, looks with transitions and skies). The tour_id parameter is already documented in the schema as a 12-hex ID from create_tour or list_tours.

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: it asks the site's tour agent to 'write or rework the tour' from a plain request. It differentiates itself from the mechanical create_tour by emphasizing AI-authored content, though it never names 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?

Gives a clear next-step handoff ('Returns at once; then call wait_for_tour') and implies usage via 'write or rework the tour from a plain request.' It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over create_tour or save_tour, so routing is only partly disambiguated.

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