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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing concrete side effects: existing members keep their plan and renewals, scheduled switchers are retained, and affected members are emailed. It also states the authorization requirement, which annotations do not carry.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the side effects, the undo path, and the preconditions. The core action is front-loaded and nothing is padding.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what is preserved, who gets notified, how to reverse it, and who may call it. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters, and it does not. Saying 'Requires community_id + tier_id' merely restates the schema's required array with no format, ID-source, or lookup guidance.

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 ('Take a paid membership tier off offer') with clear scope, and the name is distinguishable from the near-siblings archive_ticket_tier and unarchive_membership_tier. An agent knows exactly what this 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?

Explicitly names the reversal path ('Undo with unarchive_membership_tier') and the permission precondition ('creator or admin only'), which is real routing guidance. It does not spell out when to prefer this over related mutations like cancel_membership or archive_ticket_tier, so it stops short of the top score.

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