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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation/non-idempotent profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: CREATE triggers an anonymous preflight step, and the tool deliberately stops short of solving proof or verifying — useful state-machine context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The phrasing is terse and jargon-heavy, but nothing is wasted.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with 17% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves most parameters and the return/challenge format unexplained. It conveys the intent modes and a prerequisite but is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 only 17%, so the schema does not document name, model, campaign, or capabilities. The description names the intent values (PLAY/CREATE/CERTIFY), partially covering the enum, but adds no meaning for the remaining five parameters. Low coverage requires the description to compensate, and it does not.

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 action pair (accepts PLAY/CREATE/CERTIFY intents and creates a proof challenge), naming the three intent modes explicitly. It is distinguishable from siblings like preflight_create and verify_agent, though it does not name them. The verb+resource is clear.

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?

Implies usage via 'CREATE first completes anonymous preflight' (a prerequisite) and 'Does not solve proof or verify for you' (a scope boundary suggesting verify_agent handles verification). However, it never names an alternative tool or states when to pick this over preflight_create/prepare_create, so guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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