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

Adds non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: changes are read back before confirming, empty values clear fields, and edits only reach members once the brain is published again. Annotations already cover the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive), so this publish-delay and confirmation nuance is genuinely valuable context.

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 use trigger and kept to a tight, information-dense paragraph where each clause carries a distinct fact (fields, confirmation rule, partial-update semantics, publish delay, prerequisites). Slightly dense but no wasted sentences.

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?

Covers trigger, prerequisites, mutation semantics, and the publish dependency, and an output schema exists so return values need no description. Minor gap: no detail on failure/error behavior if the brain does not exist or confirmation is false.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining partial-update semantics ("only the things given change; an empty value clears one"), which the schema does not state. This meaningfully clarifies how to call an 8-param update.

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 (change) and resource (the place's coaching brain) and enumerates exactly what can be altered: name, tagline, voice, method, colour, cover photo. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling update_place and aligns each field with 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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ("Use this when an owner wants to change...") and states prerequisites (an existing coaching brain, a connected Phorme account owning the place) plus the confirm-before-write workflow. It references the publish flow implicitly but does not name sibling tools like update_place or publish_gym_brain as alternatives.

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