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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive writes. The description adds valuable context that the operation is 'Free' (cost) and 'Returns the updated context object' (confirming output), but does not disclose error behaviors (e.g., what happens if context_id is invalid) or side effects 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?

Extremely concise at four short sentences with zero redundancy. Information is front-loaded with the action verb, followed by prerequisites, return value, and cost. Every sentence delivers distinct value (purpose, dependency, output, pricing).

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?

Adequate for basic usage given the existence of an output schema (so return values need not be detailed), but insufficient for the input complexity. The hiring_context parameter contains deeply nested properties (budget_ranges, open_roles, etc.) that warrant explanation, yet the description treats it as a flat field alongside simple strings.

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?

With only 11% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by mapping concepts like 'name' to company_name and 'size' to company_size, and highlighting the required context_id. However, it fails to document four parameters (location, is_active, is_default, company_website) and provides no guidance on the complex nested structure of the hiring_context object.

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?

The description clearly states the tool updates 'hiring context details' with specific fields (name, industry, size, hiring context), providing a concrete verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like atlas_create_context by emphasizing the update operation and requirement for an existing context_id.

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 states the prerequisite that context_id must come from atlas_create_context or atlas_list_contexts, providing clear dependency guidance. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus creating a new context or which fields are optional versus required for an update.

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