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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, destructive, open-world mutation, and the description adds real context beyond them: the cost (1 db credit), the account requirement, and the reassurance that an edit does not hide the free listing. It doesn't explain field-overwrite behavior or error handling, but it usefully supplements the 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?

Short, front-loaded sentences: identity of the operation first, then parameter guidance, then cost/account prerequisites. Every sentence carries information, though the staccato fragments are slightly choppy.

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 20-parameter mutation with no output schema and near-zero schema coverage, the description covers preconditions, cost, and listing visibility but omits which fields are mutable, overwrite semantics, and failure behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

With 20 parameters and only 5% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden, but it only clarifies slug as the identifier and the partial-update convention. The other 19 fields, including the type enum listed only in the schema, receive no explanation in the description.

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?

"Update an investor you previously submitted" states a specific verb and resource, and the past-tense qualifier implicitly separates this from the create-side sibling submit_investor. It does not name a sibling directly, so it stops short of the 5 tier.

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 establishes clear preconditions (an investor you already submitted, a free account, 1 db credit) and tells the caller to pass slug plus only the fields to change. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, so it stays below 5.

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