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

The description explicitly mentions 'state-changing external action' and 'requires Enterprise access', adding behavioral context beyond the annotations. It also notes 'After authorization', clarifying that authorization is needed.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key conditions. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

The description provides essential context such as the need for authorization and Enterprise access, and the state-changing nature. While it doesn't detail return values or side effects, the absence of an output schema and the focus on modification make it reasonably complete for an update operation.

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?

The schema provides full descriptions for all 10 parameters, covering their meanings and constraints. The tool description does not add further semantic detail beyond what is already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 an existing Space Autopilot repository link, using the specific verb 'change' and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, or enable/disable by focusing on modification.

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 indicates when to use it ('when the user wants to change an existing link'), implying it is for modifications rather than creation or deletion. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the wording provides sufficient guidance.

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