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

Annotations already declare the operation non-read-only, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is lower. The description contributes real added behavior by disclosing that the estimate is recomputed as a side effect of the change, which is not derivable from the schema or 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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and mutation scope front-loaded and the enum inlined parenthetically. No filler sentences, no redundancy with the title.

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 11-parameter, one-required-field mutation with fully documented schema and annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient and even names the recompute side effect. It stops short of stating that omitted fields are left untouched, which would have closed the last gap.

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% with 11 well-documented parameters, so the schema already carries the semantics burden. The description lists the affected fields and repeats the status enum, adding no format or default guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 (Change) and resource (an opportunity) plus the mutable surface (inputs, Blueprint, status), so an agent immediately knows the scope. It is readily separable from siblings like add_opportunity and build_opportunity, which create rather than modify.

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?

Usage is only implied: the verb 'change' signals an edit against an existing opportunity id. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., add_opportunity vs build_opportunity) is given, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names.

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