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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: partial-patch semantics, the meaning of the status transitions, the permission precondition, and the return value including current permissions. It does not warn about what a status change does to dependent topics or whether updates are reversible, which matters for a destructive tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the partial-update rule, then the status cases, then the precondition. Every sentence carries information; only the final return-value sentence is mildly redundant given the operation type.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with a nested detail object and no output schema, the description covers the identity parameter, patching behavior, status transitions, and the return shape. It leaves half the parameters (validity windows, classification, parentId, references structure) with no guidance at all, which is a meaningful gap.

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 11% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and it only partly does: it explains id, status values, and the need to add a reference when superseding. label, parentId, validFrom, validUntil, classification, and the references array shape are left entirely to an undocumented schema.

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 ('Update an existing constraint') and immediately clarifies the partial-update contract ('only the fields you want to change'). The name plus this sentence separates it from engramic_create_constraint and from the sibling update_* tools, though the description never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

Gives concrete usage scenarios for the two non-default statuses (retire, supersede with a reference to the replacing constraint) and a stated prerequisite: fetch the constraint with engramic_topic first to confirm existence and permissions. It does not say when to prefer create vs update or what to do on permission failure, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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