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

Annotations already cover destructive/idempotent/open-world traits, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: sign-in plus Aisle membership prerequisite, clearing semantics for nullable fields, the cannot-be-empty partner rule, and what the response identifies. It does not, however, elaborate on the consequences of unpublishing beyond what the is_published schema already says.

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?

Four tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The return-value sentence earns its place because there is no output schema, though the whole is slightly denser than necessary given how much the schema and annotations already carry.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, clearing rules, auth requirements, and response shape, which is close to complete. The only meaningful gap is the lack of sibling routing guidance (e.g., when to use this versus set_my_site_address).

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter-related content (nullable clearing, partner names replace-only, omitted fields unchanged) largely restates constraints already spelled out in the schema, adding little beyond what the agent will read there.

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 and resource ('Updates supplied wedding settings') plus a distinctive capability ('can publish or unpublish the guest site'), so the agent can tell it apart from get_my_wedding or the add_/remove_ siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling it is not, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 partial-update contract ('omitted fields remain unchanged') is implied usage guidance for callers, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives such as set_my_site_address or get_my_wedding. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer context.

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