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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by emphasizing 'deliberately delete' and requiring confirm=true for deletion. It also communicates action-specific side effects. It does not mention return values or permissions, but the output schema reduces the burden for return semantics.

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?

Two information-dense sentences with no wasted words. The core action and read-alternative are front-loaded, followed by the crucial per-action parameter requirements.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description plus a rich input schema and output schema cover the essential invocation logic: what actions exist, which parameters each action requires, and the destructive guard. The description does not summarize the filters object, but the schema provides full property-level detail for that.

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?

The input schema already documents most parameters well at 75% coverage, and the description adds valuable cross-parameter constraints not expressed in the schema: create requires name, update and delete require id, and delete requires confirm=true. This is exactly the kind of conditional semantics an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 combination: create, update, or delete saved Stashr filter collections. It also explicitly separates reads by pointing to list_collections, making the tool's role and scope unambiguous relative to its siblings.

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?

The description gives clear conditional guidance: use list_collections for reading, and it names the required parameters for each mutation action. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use the tool versus other mutation tools, but none of the siblings overlap with collection management, so the guidance is sufficient.

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