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

Annotations only give the generic readOnly=false / destructive=true profile; the description adds real behavioral context by disclosing the partial-update contract (untouched fields stay as-is) and the two-phase confirmation flow via 'May return `needs_confirmation`'. It stops short of stating permission requirements, but the schema's workspace field covers the auth nuance.

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 short sentences, each load-bearing: scope, partial-update rule plus sibling routing, and the confirmation caveat. No filler and the core mutation is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the definition covers scope, update semantics, and the confirmation round-trip. Minor gaps remain around visibility-change side effects (the 'granted afterwards' detail lives only in the schema).

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 baseline is 3, but the description contributes the patch semantics ('pass only what changes') that the schema does not express — the schema documents field meanings, not that omitted fields are preserved. That is a genuine addition rather than a restatement.

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 and resource ('Changes a dataset's title, description, or visibility') and immediately scopes it away from item-level operations by naming the siblings that handle those (add_items / update_item / remove_item). An agent can distinguish it from caliper_datasets_update_item without opening either 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?

Explicitly instructs to 'pass only what changes; items are untouched' and routes item-related work to three named alternatives. The when-not condition is stated rather than implied.

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