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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description adds useful context: it is a partial patch ('send only what changes') and carries negative guarantees about status and secret changes. It does not discuss side effects or error behavior, but the core behavioral profile is clearly disclosed.

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?

The description is exactly two sentences long, front-loads the primary action, and each clause serves a purpose. There is no filler or redundant restating of 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?

With 8 parameters all covered by the schema and no output schema, the description adequately explains the operation's scope, partial-update behavior, and exclusions. It could mention return value or validation behavior, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds only the general PATCH semantics ('send only what changes') rather than specific parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'Patch a partner binding's fields', making the operation clear. It also distinguishes itself from related sibling tools by explicitly naming what it does not do (status, signing secret).

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 gives explicit exclusions and points to the correct alternatives: 'use set_partner_binding_status' and 'use rotate_partner_binding_secret'. This leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this tool over its close siblings.

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