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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds real value: partial-update semantics (only supplied figures/notes change), the fact that supplied text overwrites old text, an explicit no-delete assurance, the returned value shape, and the account requirement. These go well beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Front-loads the verb and resource, then packs mutation semantics, replacement rule, safety note, return value and auth requirement into a few compact clauses. Slightly run-on with one colon-chained sentence but no 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 17-parameter mutation tool with no output schema but full annotation coverage, the description covers the operation's scope, safety, and result. It could go further on why it is idempotent or what a returned "link" contains, but nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so per-field semantics are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds the cross-parameter rule that omitted fields are preserved and text inputs replace existing text, which materially affects how an agent chooses to populate the 17 fields.

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 ("Change a bake in the baker's Loafy bake journal") and immediately disambiguates it from the create path by naming the sibling sources of the id (list_my_bakes, log_bake). An agent can distinguish it from log_bake/update_container without opening a schema.

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 clear context: use it with an id from list_my_bakes or log_bake, and only the fields supplied change while the rest stays. It does not state explicit when-not conditions or name a competing sibling directly, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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