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

It adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the created page is public and read-only for viewers, includes only specific metrics, and excludes sensitive names/values. It also notes free early access. No contradiction with the annotations, as readOnlyHint=false correctly reflects that the operation itself creates or disables the link.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with a colon-separated list of included/excluded content. No filler or redundant information.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and content scope, and an output schema exists. However, it omits how admin_token is used, what exactly happens when disable is true, and the idempotent behavior. Overall adequate but with notable gaps.

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 only 33% (only 'disable' has a description), and the description does not explain calendar_id or admin_token. It implies a disable action but does not connect it to the 'disable' parameter, leaving the agent to infer from the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: creating or disabling a public read-only progress page. It lists specific content (completion %, streak, countdown) and excludes other data, which distinguishes it from siblings like create_calendar or get_status.

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 description implies a use case (accountability) and mentions early access, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools are referenced.

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