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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful context about the data sources (get_tour JSON, search_models URLs, any https .glb), but does not disclose overwrite/replace semantics or whether the whole tour is replaced.

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 tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded and the input-source detail second. No filler, though the model-URL sentence is somewhat terse and could be clearer about which field it populates.

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, nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description covers the input side from the source tools but omits what happens on save (full replacement vs merge), overwrite implications, and any return confirmation. Gaps remain that an agent would want resolved before invoking.

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 33% (only tour_id is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It does explain the key `experience` parameter (JSON from get_tour) and the accepted model URL formats, but leaves `title` undocumented and does not describe the structure of the nested experience object.

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 ("saves") and resource ("tour") and narrows scope with "edited by hand: the experience JSON from get_tour with changes," which separates it from create_tour. It never explicitly names the sibling alternatives, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 phrase "from get_tour with changes" implies the read-then-edit-then-save workflow, and "Models use a url from search_models" explains where model inputs come from. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus create_tour, draft_tour, or finish_upload, and no statement of preconditions.

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