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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known without the description. However, the description does not explain what makes this destructive, whether omitted fields are left unchanged (patch semantics), or whether status transitions such as 'archived' are reversible — useful context the annotations cannot supply.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it comes at the cost of the missing detail scored elsewhere.

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 six-parameter mutation tool flagged destructive with 17% schema coverage and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It should at minimum state partial-update behavior, what the status enum means, and any consequence of destructive changes.

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 only 17% (only datasetId is documented), so the description must compensate. It vaguely gestures at 'metadata' (name, description) and 'lifecycle status', but never mentions nodeId or workflowId, does not clarify that status is limited to draft/active/archived, and does not explain the nullable fields or whether this is a partial update.

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 names a specific verb (Update) and resource (evaluation dataset) and scopes it to 'metadata or lifecycle status', which separates it from dataset_create/delete/get. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from dataset_item_update, which edits dataset contents rather than the dataset itself, but the 'metadata or lifecycle status' phrasing implies the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (does the dataset need to exist in a given state?), and no reference to alternatives such as dataset_get for reads or dataset_delete for removal. The agent must infer appropriate usage from the tool name and sibling list alone.

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