Set or update active rune/perk page

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description usefully scopes that destructiveness by explaining pages are reused only on name match and hand-built pages are left untouched, and it names the required write allowlist endpoints. It stops short of describing the response or what happens on the create path, but adds real value 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?

Five tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then reuse semantics, then use context, then alternatives, then the ID-lookup pointer and auth requirement. No filler or restated name/title.

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 destructive, open-world write tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (perk IDs via lol_static), permissions (the two allowlist endpoints), and scoping of the destructive behavior. It omits any statement of what is returned or a failure mode, which keeps it just short of 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 coverage is 100%, including examples for path tree IDs and a breakdown of the 9-perk array, so the schema carries the load. The description only gestures at reuse-vs-create behavior ("reuses an existing page only when its name matches"), which is already implied by the `replace` and `name` parameters; it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 pair (creates/updates) plus the resource (editable rune page), the payload it takes (primary/sub styles, perk IDs), and the side effect of setting the page active. It is clearly distinguishable from the many read/telemetry siblings like lol_static and lol_analytics_*.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (before or during champ select for a champion build), gives a preference rule (use this dedicated workflow tool over manual REST calls or lol_eval), and routes the agent to lol_static with kind "perks" for the ID lookup prerequisite. When-to-use, alternatives, and a dependency are all spelled out.

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