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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the mutation lifecycle: programs are define-only, no update or archive verb exists, an admin edits them in Settings, and describe_schema lists them with ids. It also states the return value. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral context annotations can't 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then detail, then when-to-use and an example. The first paragraph is dense but every sentence earns its place; slightly long but no filler. Structure is scannable.

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?

Given an output schema exists (so return values needn't be detailed) and a nested membership_spec, the description covers the mutation safety profile, the no-update/archive constraint, where to edit later, and how to enumerate existing programs. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value – applies_to 'lists the object keys it claims' and membership_spec 'decides which records land in it', with the claim/match logic reinforced by the schema. The description reinforces rather than merely repeats the schema.

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 disambiguates by defining a program as a parallel workstream peer of the built-in Revenue motion, distinguishing it from sibling definition tools like define_pipeline and define_object. An agent can tell what it makes without opening the schema.

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?

Provides an explicit "When to use" line with concrete triggers (IR, Partnerships running alongside Revenue) plus a worked example. It doesn't explicitly contrast against define_pipeline/define_object as alternatives, but the define-only framing in the body clarifies the boundary well.

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