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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds important partial-update semantics by stating that only passed fields change, though it does not explain possible destructive side effects of changing a short code.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The mutable fields and partial-update behavior are front-loaded.

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 simple update tool with annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the key partial-update behavior. It is slightly incomplete because it omits the required ID parameter and does not discuss validation or failure behavior.

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 0%, so the description carries more burden. It identifies that short_code and content are the changed fields and implies optionality, but it does not mention the required canned_response_id or add constraints beyond the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: change a canned response's short code or text. It distinguishes this update operation from sibling create/delete/list canned response tools by action and scope.

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?

It implies use for modifying an existing canned response and notes partial-update behavior, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives to this tool.

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