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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation semantics are implied but not elaborated. The description does not say whether existing splits are overwritten, who is authorized to set them, whether the operation is reversible, or whether it emits a transaction — significant gaps for a write tool.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the validity constraint front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Adequate minimum: the agent knows what to set and the sum constraint, and the schema covers all parameters. But for a mutation with no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description should cover authorization, overwrite behavior, and the effect on existing splits.

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 ipId and the nested split fields are already documented. The description's enumeration of roles and the sum-to-100 rule merely restates what the schema already encodes, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 ('Set revenue splits for an IP asset') plus the stakeholder roles involved. It is distinguishable from read-side siblings like get_ip_revenue and pay_ip_royalty, though it never explicitly names which sibling it is *not*.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information. The agent cannot tell from the description whether this should be called at registration time, on an existing asset, or how it relates to pay_ip_royalty and claim_ip_revenue.

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