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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the link-based, never-listed semantics of public sharing and the consent requirement, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or side effects on existing shares.

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 tight clauses plus one short imperative sentence. Zero padding and the primary behavior (visibility change) is front-loaded ahead of the optional rename.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and partial schema coverage, the description covers both actions, the sharing semantics, and consent. Missing only permission/error behavior, which is minor given no output schema exists.

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), so the description must compensate. It does: 'makes a tour public or private' clarifies the public boolean, and 'optionally renames it' clarifies the title parameter, covering both undocumented fields.

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 specific verbs (makes public/private, optionally renames) and the resource (tour), with a precise clarification of what 'public' means: 'anyone with its link, never listed.' This is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from a potentially overlapping sibling like set_visibility.

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?

Usage is implied (toggling tour visibility / renaming), and 'Ask the person first' gives a real consent precondition. However, it never routes the agent among alternatives such as set_visibility or draft_tour, so selection guidance is left to inference.

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