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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that it edits an existing brand asset and lists the mutable fields, but does not disclose whether it performs a partial update (only provided fields) or what happens if screen_id does not exist. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no filler. The list of fields is useful but makes the sentence long; acceptable for eight parameters.

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 an update tool with eight optional parameters and a required identifier, the description identifies the resource and editable fields but omits behavioral details like partial-update semantics or the requirement that screen_id reference an existing screen. Output schema exists, so return values need not be described.

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 the burden. It lists 7 of 8 parameters and groups screen_type, device, and theme as 'screenshot tags', which adds semantic context. However, it does not define ambiguous fields like kind or use_when, and screen_id is only implied by the required 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?

States verb 'Edit' with resource 'existing brand asset' and enumerates the mutable fields. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like upload_product_screen, delete_product_screen, and update_brand_dna by targeting screen metadata. Unambiguous about what operation this tool performs.

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?

The description implies usage for editing an existing brand asset but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as upload_product_screen or delete_product_screen. It does not state exclusions or conditions, e.g., 'use when the screen already exists.'

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