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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds useful behavior about partial updates and that the response carries the caller's permissions. It does not warn what the destructive flag means in practice (e.g. whether clearing detail or status transitions lose prior data), and the 'check your permissions' advice is the only hint that writes may be rejected.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action, then the status workflow, then the prerequisite lookup. Nearly every sentence earns its place; the closing return-value sentence is borderline but still informative.

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 destructive, 11-parameter mutation with nested objects, no output schema and thin schema descriptions, the definition covers the main workflow but leaves most optional parameters and their interactions undocumented. An agent can perform the common answer/reopen case correctly but would be guessing on detail, parentId, validity dates and references.

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 27% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate more than it does. It adds real meaning for id, status, answeredBy and note (including the e_…/t_… id format and the open/filled transition), but label, detail, parentId, validFrom/validUntil, references and classification receive no explanation anywhere.

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?

"Update an existing gap" states a specific verb and resource, and the follow-up sentence clarifies the partial-update contract ("only the fields you want to change"). The 'gap' resource distinguishes it from update_concept/update_goal/update_resource siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with engramic_create_gap or the other update_* tools.

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 workflow conditions: set status to 'filled' with answeredBy or note to answer a gap, set status to 'open' to reopen one, and call engramic_topic first to confirm existence and permissions. It names a sibling as a prerequisite rather than as an alternative, so the when-not-to-use case is left implicit.

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