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

Annotations declare idempotent and destructive, and the description earns credit by explaining why: partial-update semantics ("omitted fields are left unchanged"), the take-out-of-service path that stands in for deletion, the auth requirement ("scope locations:write (Admin role)"), and the return value. This is well beyond what the annotations convey.

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 dense paragraph with the core action front-loaded and zero filler sentences. It is information-rich rather than padded, though the parenthetical asides stacked mid-sentence make it slightly harder to scan than a short bulleted form would be.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the return value ("Returns the updated door"), auth scope, partial-update behavior, and the semantics of every non-obvious parameter. Nothing an agent needs to call this mutation correctly is missing.

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: the clipping rule for weeklyHours, that omitted days are closed for that door specifically, that null reverts to the location's hours, and that an empty appointmentTypeIds array includes future types. Only the name/maxLength constraint is left to the 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource pair ("Edit a dock door") and immediately enumerates the mutable facets (appointment type limits, weekly hours, isActive). An agent can separate this from list_doors, create_door, update_location_settings, and set_weekly_hours without opening any schema.

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?

Strong conditional guidance: "Type limits and door hours apply only when the location assigns doors," and "isActive: false takes it out of service (there is no delete)" tells the agent to use this tool instead of a nonexistent delete path. No sibling tool is named as an explicit alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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