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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that – no note on ownership requirements, reversibility of toggling visibility, or effect 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 short fragments, zero filler, and the operation is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for a mutation, but nothing is wasted.

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 with a nested object body, 0% parameter coverage, and no output schema, the description does too little. It never explains the id source, the body shape, or what success returns, leaving the agent reliant on schema inference.

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% for the two top-level parameters (id, body). The description mentions 'public visibility', which hints at the nested isPublic flag, but adds no meaning for the id or body envelope. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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: 'Update code reaction public visibility', which is meaningfully more precise than the bare name. An agent can tell it apart from the LLM/strategy variants conceptually, though the description never names siblings explicitly to disambiguate.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus alternatives such as put_strategy_code_id_public, put_strategy_reaction_code_id_status, or the delete counterparts. It only restates the operation with no context, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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