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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: flow/platform validation, rejection of stale revisions, revision increment, and deterministic recompilation. It does not say what is returned or what an error looks like, but the mutation semantics are well disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the behavioral consequences, then the routing rule. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is padded.

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 a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description covers validation, staleness rejection, revision bump, and recompilation. It omits what the call returns (presumably the new revision) and failure modes, but annotations plus schema fill most remaining 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'canonical QTML mobile flow' and the revision requirement restates what the flow parameter description already says ('including its current revision'), adding no format or syntax detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (managed mobile script from its canonical QTML mobile flow), and explicitly contrasts with the sibling update_script. An agent can distinguish it from update_script without opening either 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 routes the agent: 'Use this instead of update_script for managed mobile flows.' That gives a clear selection rule. It stops short of stating the inverse (what to use for unmanaged flows) or any preconditions such as needing a current revision, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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