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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Edit your open intent' only conveys mutation and ownership. It omits important behavior such as whether editing is partial, what happens if the intent is closed or not owned, and whether updating affects existing bids or matches.

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 short sentence, which is easy to parse, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It provides barely more information than the tool name itself and does not earn its place as a standalone definition.

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?

This is a complex 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description gives no operational context. Missing details include required parameters, update semantics, ownership requirements, and what the tool returns on success or failure.

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 only 8%, so the description must compensate for the mostly undocumented parameters. It does not mention intent_id being required, nor does it indicate that title, tags, price, location, delivery, or other fields are editable.

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 states a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('your open intent'), making it clear this is a mutation tool for an existing intent owned by the caller. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_intent or cancel_intent, beyond the implied contrast in the name.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use update_intent versus create_intent or cancel_intent. The description also does not clarify whether updates are partial or full, whether the intent must already be open, or what prerequisites apply.

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