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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description goes beyond them by adding concrete behavioral context: dangerousScriptingEnabled unlocks scene_script, permission levels are specified, values are validated against platform bounds, and every change is versioned. This meaningfully helps the agent anticipate side effects and reversibility.

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 dense sentences front-load the tool's action and scope, then efficiently pack permissions, validation, and versioning behavior. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 an 11-parameter destructive mutation tool, the description provides key permission and versioning context, but it omits explicit differentiation from deployment_update and leaves several parameter semantics ambiguous. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete for correct agent decision-making.

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 only 18%, leaving most parameters undocumented. The description maps broad categories like job timeouts, queue depth, and render caps onto the schema, and explicitly explains dangerousScriptingEnabled, but it leaves parameters such as maxOperationsPerMutation, approvalRequiredForRestore, and maxConcurrentJobs unexplained. This does not sufficiently compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Tune') and clearly targets 'a deployment's execution policy', then enumerates the concrete policy dimensions. It differentiates itself from the generic deployment_update via this execution-policy scope, though it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling.

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 provides useful authorization context ('OWNER only', 'owner/admin') and implies the tool is for tuning execution policy, but it never explicitly states when to use this over deployment_update or when not to use it. Usage guidance is mostly implicit rather than explicit.

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