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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that this is a destructive wholesale replacement, that keeping a step's key preserves per-visit state on in-progress visits, and that reset restores eight default steps. Remaining gaps are the consequences of dropping a keyed step mid-visit and any limits on list size, which are left to the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the replace semantics before the state-preservation rule, the permission requirement, and the reset fallback. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 replace-style mutation with no annotations, the definition covers the destructive nature, auth requirement, and keyed state migration, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The undefined 'op' field and missing guidance on list-size limits or failure behavior keep it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must supply meaning, and it does for the most part: 'steps' is defined as the complete ordered list, 'key' is explained as the state-preservation handle, and 'reset' is tied to the eight defaults. The notable hole is the 'op' property on each step object, which the description never mentions and whose semantics are left entirely opaque.

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 — 'Replace the shop's guided visit steps' — and immediately enumerates the four operations it covers (add, remove, rename, reorder). This clearly separates it from the sibling shops_visitSteps read tool and from visits_markStep / visits_steps, which act on visits rather than the shop-level template.

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 makes the core usage contract explicit: it is a full-list replace, so the agent must send every step it wants to keep, and 'send reset true' is the escape hatch to the eight defaults. It also states the permission gate (owner or office). It stops short of naming the read-only sibling explicitly or saying when NOT to use it, so it is clear context rather than a full routing rule.

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