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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the crucial nuance that only supplied fields are written and the rest are preserved, which meaningfully reframes the plain 'destructive' hint. It also specifies content expectations (administrator's own words and language, not a summary). It does not describe reversibility or auth requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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, each doing distinct work: action, patch semantics, content style, and sequencing prerequisite. Front-loaded with the action and free of filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation model (partial update), ordering, and content style, which is the most important behavior. However, it omits any field-level guidance despite zero schema coverage, so an agent must guess what each property should contain.

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?

With 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden but names no fields at all. It only says 'the fields you pass change' and gives a general content style rule, leaving the meaning and expected format of tone, audience, products, top_questions, escalation_policy, etc. entirely undocumented.

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 + resource ("Save ... their business" profile) and implicitly separates itself from the read-side sibling by instructing the agent to call get_business_profile first. An agent can tell this is the write counterpart, though the description never names the resource as 'business profile' explicitly beyond the title.

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 a concrete precondition (call get_business_profile first to avoid clobbering correct values) and clarifies merge-vs-replace semantics. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming alternatives besides the read tool, but the sequencing guidance is clear.

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