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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description complements this with concrete behavior: batching at up to 100 record bodies per call, reporting how many remain, and that record edits normally patch the copy automatically. It does not spell out that rebuild discards existing rows in the prose (that lives in the schema), so slightly short of full coverage.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the triggering condition, throughput behavior, and the important reassurance that routine edits patch the feed automatically. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by stating it 'reports how many remain'. Combined with annotations covering destructiveness and open-world behavior, the definition is close to complete, though it omits any note on permissions or failure modes for a rebuild.

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%, so both parameters (tableSlug, rebuild) are already fully documented, including the discard semantics of rebuild. The description adds the practical throughput note (100 records per call) but no additional parameter-level meaning; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Continue building a published table's public copy, or rebuild it from scratch') and explicitly distinguishes the two modes. It also names the sibling muninn_table_publish as the trigger, so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('after muninn_table_publish says records remain', 'when a table was changed by something other than the record tools') and a when-not-to-use signal ('in normal use a feed needs no refreshing at all'). This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs versus the record tools.

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