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

Annotations only give the safety profile (destructive, idempotent, not open-world). The description adds the semantics behind them: full replacement rather than patch, external side-effect scope ("Does not change GitHub"), the idempotency mechanism (reuse request_id and payload), and a concrete side effect (draft/archived listings become hidden).

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with no filler. The final clause about draft/archived listings is telegraphic but still informative rather than redundant.

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 destructive mutation with a large nested payload and no output schema, the description covers concurrency, idempotency, external effect scope, and state transitions. It omits what happens on revision mismatch (error behavior) and any requirement context for the listing fields, which the schema alone encodes.

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 must carry semantic weight; it explains expected_revision as an exact-match concurrency token and request_id as a retry key. It adds nothing about id or the shape of the nested listing object, leaving half the parameters unannotated.

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 and resource: "Replace your account's listing", which is clearly distinct from register_swarm (create) and get_swarm/search_swarms (read). It doesn't name any sibling explicitly, but the phrase "your account's listing" scopes it to an existing owned listing.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the expected_revision requirement tells the agent this is for updating a known revision, and the retry sentence covers the retry case. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. register_swarm guidance or exclusion criteria.

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