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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses real behavior: hard quotas (200 things per set, 20 sets per project), atomic all-or-nothing creation ('the first that is not is the refusal and nothing is made'), disclosure scoping ('Only what the list names goes out', an unknown name leaks nothing of the project), the absence of a preview card, and an audit entry in project history. The phrasing is oblique in places, but the operational facts an agent needs are present.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a dense run-on of em-dashes, parentheticals and elliptical clauses ('a name not on it says so and nothing of the project') that require re-reading. The PM-1167 ticket reference and meta-commentary like 'A set has no card' spend words without adding decision value.

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 6-parameter, non-readonly write tool with no output schema, the description covers authorization, quotas, failure atomicity and disclosure scope, which is the bulk of what matters. The one gap is that it never states what the call returns (presumably the set's link/identifier), which an agent would need given there is no output schema.

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 3 is the floor; the description exceeds it by explaining that 'terms' accepts ids, words or spellings and 'claims' accepts ids or labels, comma-separated, and by cross-referencing create_term_embed for the semantics of 'sites' and 'days'. The added rule that each listed item must be individually publishable ('a confirmed term you may open') is meaningful validation context not present in 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?

The opening clause gives a concrete verb and resource: putting a list of a project's terms and claims on other sites under ONE link, with the HTML snippets (data-kaiku-term / data-kaiku-claim) showing what is produced. It implicitly contrasts with the singular create_term_embed / create_claim_embed siblings via 'each thing as its own link would show it', but never names them as the alternative, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'for an article that cites many' gives a use-case signal, and 'Only for somebody who may write in the project' sets a permission precondition. However, it never explicitly routes an agent to create_term_embed or create_claim_embed when only one thing needs publishing, and the ticket reference PM-1167 is not actionable guidance — usage is implied rather than stated.

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