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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: redirects from the previous address are retained, and sign-in plus membership are required. It stops short of describing failure behavior when an address is unavailable.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its main effect (redirect retention), followed by format rules and prerequisites. No filler or repetition.

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 solid annotations and full parameter coverage, the description covers the effect, the format validation, the auth requirements, and the redirect side-effect. With no output schema, little else is needed for correct 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real constraints not in the schema: length (2-63), allowed character set, and the availability/unreserved requirement. This meaningfully extends what the agent knows about the address parameter.

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 (Changes) and resource (the selected wedding's guest-site address within aisle.wedding), making the scope immediately clear. No sibling tool performs anything comparable, so there is no ambiguity to resolve.

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 clarifies operation context ('the selected wedding') and lists prerequisites (sign-in and Aisle membership). It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps with this action, so clear context is enough.

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