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

Beyond annotations, it reveals the effective privacy rule ('stricter of the two sides'), what watchers can and cannot see, and the ownership requirement for acting. This informs an agent about side effects and auth limitations that readOnly/idempotent hints do not convey.

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?

Three sentences deliver the levels, defaults, privacy semantics, auth constraint, and a safety guardrail with no filler. The most important scoping decision is front-loaded before the operational rule.

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 3-parameter configuration tool with no output schema, the description covers all parameter meanings, the mutation's privacy effects, and the human-approval constraint. The annotations already supply idempotency and non-destructiveness, so no critical gap remains for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 carries the burden. It fully explains the level enum with defaults and audience scope, and it implies that owner_token authenticates the post owner. post_id is only identified as 'this post,' so its semantics are adequate but not deeply elaborated.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Choose who can watch this post's negotiations live,' and then defines the three access levels. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as set_callback, which deals with callbacks rather than watch access.

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?

It gives clear operational context: the default level, the stricter-of-two-sides rule, and an explicit guardrail to ask a human before choosing unlisted or public. It does not name alternative tools or say when not to use the tool, but no sibling performs the same function.

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