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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing merge semantics ("Changes merge atomically and preserve other attachments") and an authorization requirement. These are non-obvious traits an agent needs and are consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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-loads the core action, then layers ID source, merge behavior, exclusions, and auth. Four sentences all earn their place, though the stacked negative list is slightly verbose.

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 4-param mutation with no output schema and no annotation detail, it covers action, merge/atomicity, ID provenance, and auth well. It omits return shape, conflict/failure behavior, and idempotency, which leaves minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden; it clarifies that attachIds/detachIds are catalog IDs from list_hosted_world_experiences, but leaves workspaceId and worldId entirely undefined in prose and doesn't explain relationships or constraints (max 100, patterns).

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 specific verbs (attach/detach) and a specific resource (existing ready workspace experiences from a hosted world), which cleanly separates it from get/list/save siblings. The negative clause ("does not edit, generate, start, charge for or publish") further sharpens the boundary.

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?

Points to the exact ID source ("Use exact catalog IDs from list_hosted_world_experiences") and states an auth precondition ("Only creator-side authenticated tools can change the lineup"). The when-not set is given via the negatives, but it never contrasts itself with the closest sibling, save_hosted_world_site.

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