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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so safety is partly covered, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: this is a PATCH-style partial update where unspecified fields survive, and the call may return a `needs_confirmation` state requiring a follow-up with an approvalId. It does not explain what is actually destructive here (e.g. a visibility downgrade revoking access), which is the one gap.

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?

Three compact sentences/fragments, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, then the exclusion with alternatives, then the confirmation caveat. No filler and nothing rhetorical.

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?

With no output schema, the description still flags the one non-obvious return path (`needs_confirmation`) and the schema documents the approvalId continuation. For a six-parameter mutation with destructive semantics, it is complete enough, though the lack of any note on which changes are destructive or reversible leaves a minor hole.

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%, including a fully documented visibility enum with a natural-language mapping and the approvalId/workspace auth notes, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the three top-level fields and adds the patch-semantics cue, which does not meaningfully exceed what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb (changes) plus the exact mutable fields (title, description, visibility) of a named resource (dataset), which matches the title. It also explicitly excludes dataset item content and names the siblings that own those operations, so the agent can separate this from add_items/update_item/remove_item without reading schemas.

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?

Supplies an explicit when-not rule ('items are untouched') and names three alternative tools for that case, which is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives pattern. The 'Pass only what changes' instruction also tells the agent how to call it (partial update) versus a full replacement.

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