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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value on top by flagging that authorization is required and that the action needs Enterprise access. It does not, however, disclose what a destructive update can overwrite or whether unspecified fields are preserved, which is the one behavioral fact an agent still needs.

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 sentences, with the when-to-use trigger front-loaded and the behavioral caveats second. The second sentence is dense but each clause (authorization, state-changing, field scope, Enterprise gating) carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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, destructive, nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description covers trigger, auth, and field scope but omits partial-vs-full update semantics and the effect on existing settings. Since annotations carry the safety signal and the schema fully documents parameters, this is adequate but not 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 100% and each of the 10 parameters is documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's field list largely restates the schema (branch, triggers, path filters, notifications, auto-apply) and adds no format, range, or default detail beyond it.

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 ('change an existing Space Autopilot repository link') and enumerates the mutable fields (branch, triggers, path filters, AI context, notifications, auto-apply). The word 'existing' plus 'change' cleanly separates it from create-space-repository-link, delete-space-repository-link, enable-space-repository-link, and disable-space-repository-link without needing the schemas.

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?

'Use this when the user wants to change an existing Space Autopilot repository link' is an explicit trigger condition, and the Enterprise-access note acts as a prerequisite gate. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. use create- for new links, list-space-repository-links to resolve link_id), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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