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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds the crucial detail that product_variants is a full replacement of all linked products and variants — the exact destructive behavior an agent must know before calling. It does not address whether omitted top-level fields are cleared by the PUT or what permissions are required.

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 sentences, mutation flag front-loaded, the destructive replacement caveat immediately followed by the safer sibling alternative. No filler and nothing buried.

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 edit with no output schema, the description covers the main hazard (list replacement) and the alternative path. Remaining gaps — partial-vs-full update semantics for omitted fields and the response shape — are secondary but non-trivial for a PUT.

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?

With 75% schema coverage the bar is modest, but the description still adds value: it explains product_variants as a complete replacement set, gives an example of the options label ("Deliver every"), and names the endpoint semantics (PUT). rule_id and name are left to 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?

"WRITE: Edit a subscription rule" gives a specific verb, mutation direction, and resource, then enumerates exactly which fields are editable (name, options label, product list). An agent can separate this from read siblings like get_subscription_rule or list_subscription_rules without inspecting 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 explicitly routes the agent away from this tool for additive changes: "to add some without removing the others use sealsubscriptions_append_rule_product_variants." That is a concrete when-not plus named alternative, but no guidance is given on when to edit a rule at all versus creating or deleting one.

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