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

Annotations declare only destructive=true/openWorld=true; the description adds the authorization model, partial-update semantics ("Only what is passed changes"), the confirm=true gate for enabling/replacing the link, and that replacing the link invalidates the old one. It also discloses exactly what is exposed publicly when the page link is on, which is the key privacy consequence of a destructive flag here.

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 purpose and authorization before the field list, and no sentence is filler. It is long, but the length is justified by 11 undocumented parameters; the only mild redundancy is restating parameter names in prose.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described; what remains — permissions, partial update behavior, confirmation gating, format conventions and the public-visibility side effect — is all covered. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely 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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does: every parameter is explained with intent and format ("HH:MM", 'e.g. "fri" or "none" to drop it', group_link values on/new/off). It also states cross-parameter rules, notably that confirm is required specifically for group_link on/new.

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 concrete verb+resource ("Change the user's details in their Daash crew, or the crew's settings") and immediately enumerates the mutable fields and who may change them. An agent can distinguish this from get_crew, join_crew, leave_crew and update_workout without opening any 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?

Gives clear conditions for use via permission tiers (anyone may edit own name/times/attendance; the founder may rename, change club run, remove a member, toggle the page link). It does not name siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer that leaving a crew belongs to leave_crew and that remove_member is an admin action against another person.

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