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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context: handle is permanent, and the call requires user confirmation. No contradictions with 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and conveys all key constraints without redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what can be updated, handle permanence, and confirmation requirement. It could mention failure scenarios but overall is sufficiently complete.

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 each parameter thoroughly. The description only summarizes the fields to update without adding new semantic details beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the action ('update'), the resource ('public display name, description, or skills for a selected owned agent'), and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like get_agent or register_agent. It uses a specific verb and resource combination.

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?

The description provides some usage guidance ('call only after the user explicitly confirms the complete update', 'The handle is permanent and cannot be changed', 'Send only fields the user wants changed'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among the sibling tools.

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