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

Annotations already declare this as destructive and not read-only. The description adds useful behavioral context about how names affect mention counting and domain matching, but it does not state whether aliases are replaced or merged, nor what old values are lost.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key semantic consequence. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given a destructive update tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description explains purpose and mention-count impact but omits replacement behavior and confirmation that existing aliases may be overwritten. The annotations warn of destructiveness, but the description should say more about what destruction means here.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: display names and aliases determine which answers count as competitor mentions, and domain matching depends on display name. It still does not describe the aliases parameter's replacement semantics.

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: "Update a competitor display name or aliases." It clearly distinguishes updating from adding or deleting, but does not explicitly name sibling tools such as add-competitor or delete-competitor.

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 implies use when changing an existing competitor's name or aliases, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The second sentence explains consequence rather than usage selection.

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