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

Annotations already declare this a non-read-only, non-idempotent write, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the swipe is 'Final' (irreversible), likes are 'secret', both owners are notified on a match, and the full consequential chain through texting and date booking is spelled out. This is far more than the annotations convey.

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 core action and value mapping are front-loaded in the first sentence, with consequences following. It is dense but each clause carries information (finality, match semantics, sibling names, secrecy); the parenthetical sibling list is slightly heavy but earned.

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 4-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the irreversible nature, and the downstream effects an agent must reason about. It omits error/edge behavior (already-swiped card, invalid target, per-swipe limits), which is the only remaining gap.

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 75%, and the description supplies the one piece the schema lacks: the semantic mapping of the bare boolean 'like' to right/left. target_id, character_id and agent_id are already documented in the schema with maxLength and usage notes, so the description's marginal addition is targeted rather than redundant.

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 ('Swipe on a card from swipe_deck') and immediately disambiguates the value mapping (like: true = right, false = left), which distinguishes it from swipe_deck (the deck-retrieval sibling) and find_matches. An agent knows exactly what this call does without opening the schema.

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 routes the agent to swipe_deck as the source of cards and names every downstream tool in the match flow (answer_match, send_text, read_texts, go_on_date, start_own_date), giving clear context for when this fires. It stops short of explicit exclusions, e.g. no statement about what to do if a card was already swiped or how to withdraw a swipe.

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