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

Annotations only flag it as a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the blast radius (all shared-flag quizzes redraw immediately), the non-effect (own quiz colors preserved), and the auth prerequisite. It does not discuss reversibility or failure behavior.

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 core action, followed by scope of effect and the permission requirement. No filler; every sentence carries information.

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 2-param mutation with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: action, scope, permission. Only minor gaps remain, such as what the agent should expect on invalid input or whether repeated calls are safe.

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 100%, with every nested field (palette_id, font_family, custom_colors, bar_color_mode, toggles) documented including the custom-palette rollback rule. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource (sets the account's shared reports palette) and scopes it precisely: it applies to all quizzes with results_appearance_use_shared=true. This clearly distinguishes it from per-quiz theming siblings like apply_quiz_theme and from create_report_appearance_preset.

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 gives clear context (affects every quiz with the shared flag) and names the required permission (account_quiz_settings), plus clarifies that per-quiz colors are untouched, which implicitly routes away from quiz-level theming tools. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case.

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