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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the call only STARTS a change and nothing is written until the user confirms — important because it explains why capital_company_confirm/show_confirmation exist and why a 'success' here may not mean persisted data.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the confirmation constraint. No filler and nothing redundant.

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, the description covers the essential mechanics: it's a partial, confirm-gated update limited to named fields. It could say more about what happens after confirmation or what a caller should expect back, but nothing critical is missing.

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% with 3 well-documented parameters (team, request, timeZone), so the schema carries the burden. 'The fields they name' loosely maps to the free-text request parameter but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource ('changing settings of one of the user's funds') and scopes it precisely ('the fields they name, nothing else'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like capital_company_create_fund or capital_company_edit_commitment, so it stops short of a 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 description implies the usage context (an assistant-mediated change flow) and hints that changes require confirmation, but it never states when to choose this over create_fund or edit_commitment, nor any exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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