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

Annotations already disclose mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: the define-only lifecycle with no update/archive verb yet, and where edits must happen instead. It does not address duplicate-label behavior or key collisions beyond the schema's own note.

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?

The critical definition is front-loaded and the 'When to use' plus example are clearly separated. The opening sentence is long and dense with inline notation ({...}, applies_to), which slightly hurts scanability but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, the return value needn't be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills the remaining gaps on lifecycle, selection intent, and a worked example, leaving nothing an agent needs to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds conceptual meaning by explicitly relating the two key parameters: applies_to claims object keys while membership_spec decides which records land in the program. That division of responsibility is useful framing not obvious from the field list alone.

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+resource ('Create a top-level program') and immediately frames what a program is (a parallel workstream peer to the built-in Revenue motion). This cleanly distinguishes it from structural siblings like define_pipeline, define_object, and define_field, which also create top-level entities.

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?

Contains an explicit 'When to use' clause naming the triggering scenario (an admin running a workstream alongside Revenue) plus a concrete example. It also pre-empts misuse by stating programs are define-only and that an admin edits them in Settings, so an agent won't hunt for an update/archive verb.

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