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

Annotations declare destructive=true and readOnly=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that testers with project-status emails enabled get notified, that the first call is a pure preview with no state change, and that tokens are single-use and expire in minutes.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its preconditions, then the two-step flow. Every sentence carries information, though the token mechanics are restated in both the description and the confirmationToken schema entry, adding mild redundancy.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the state precondition, side effects (tester notifications), no-op behavior, and the full confirmation workflow — everything an agent needs to call it safely.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by explaining that confirmationToken is obtained from the first call and must be sent with the SAME arguments, which the schema alone only partially conveys.

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 (start a PUBLISHED/scheduled beta project immediately) with scope clarified as overriding the start date, which cleanly separates it from siblings like publishBeta, pauseBeta, and resumeBeta.

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?

Explicit preconditions and alternatives: only published projects can be launched, a draft requires publishBeta first, and calling it on an already-running beta is a no-op. The two-step confirmation protocol and the instruction to only re-call after explicit user approval are spelled out.

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