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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds material behavior beyond them: edited copy is re-run through claims checking, and a hook whose claims block cannot be approved — a genuinely important side effect for a mutation. It also discloses the auth scope and plan gate, which annotations 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?

The scope/mutation tag leads, the core action follows, and the behavioral caveat and endpoint come last — a sensible front-loaded order. The bracketed prefix and parenthetical endpoint are slightly noisy but each carries real information.

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 10-parameter mutation with no output schema and near-zero parameter documentation, the description covers prerequisites and the approval-blocking behavior well, but leaves an agent unable to know what most fields mean or what a successful response returns. Adequate, not complete.

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?

With 10 parameters and only 10% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden but supplies almost nothing: only "sets its status" hints at the status enum, while fit, card, line, angle, style, format and topics remain undefined in both schema and prose. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Edits a hook or sets its status" names a specific verb (edit/set status) and resource (hook), which separates it cleanly from hooks_generate (create) and hooks_list (read). It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the operation type is unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage through prerequisites (write scope, Pro plan, existing hook id) but never states when to pick this over hooks_generate or when a hook should be retired rather than edited. The plan/scope constraints are the only routing help provided.

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