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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: it creates only a private preview with no membership purchase, publication, invitations or marketing enrollment, and sign-up happens in the browser, not via arguments. This discloses exactly what is not triggered, which the destructiveHint and openWorldHint flags cannot convey, and does not contradict them.

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 purpose followed by edge-case and side-effect clauses, each earning its place. Slightly dense, but no filler sentences.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers confirmation requirement, idempotent behavior, multi-wedding handling, and what is deliberately not performed. An agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description reinforces omit-if-undecided behavior for date and location, but adds little syntax beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Specific verb and resource (creates the signed-in couple's first wedding) with scope boundaries that distinguish it from update_my_wedding and get_my_wedding: 'first wedding', existing weddings returned unchanged, multi-wedding accounts asked which to use.

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?

Clearly states when this applies (first wedding, after explicit confirmation) and what happens in the edge cases (existing wedding returned unchanged, multiple weddings disambiguated). It doesn't name sibling tools directly, but the preconditions cover the routing decision.

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