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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: optimistic concurrency via the read configVersion, the VERSION_CONFLICT outcome on a stale version, the deferred effect on a published dataset, and the 401/OAuth behavior for guest callers.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what changes, followed by concurrency and publish semantics, then auth. No filler, though the third sentence's OAuth detail is somewhat tangential to the change operation itself.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers concurrency, publish interplay, and auth. The main gap is that the nested config fields (tools, capabilities, default scenario) are never tied back to the patch structure.

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 only 25% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does for expectedConfigVersion ('Names the configVersion it read'). It also names the updatable concepts, though 'tools, required capabilities, default scenario' are not mapped to the nested config object, leaving that sub-structure opaque.

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 (change) and resource (dataset the account owns) and enumerates the mutable fields: title, language, tools, required capabilities, default scenario. It also distinguishes itself from atlas_dataset_publish by noting the published set serves its published config until that sibling runs.

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?

Clearly positions the tool against atlas_dataset_publish ('keeps serving its published config until... publish') and states the auth condition that gates use. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming other siblings such as atlas_dataset_create or atlas_dataset_get.

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