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

Annotations already declare this a destructive (but idempotent) mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: steps and platforms exhibit replace-not-merge semantics, the server reorders steps by delay, and all validation happens before any change (atomicity). It stops short of stating reversibility or response shape.

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 core action leads, followed by tightly packed constraints in three short sentences with no filler. Density is high but each clause (partial-update requirement, replace semantics, validation ordering) carries distinct information.

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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the key gaps: partial-update rule, replace semantics, ordering, and atomic validation. Only the boolean enabled parameter and post-update result behavior are left unexplained.

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 75% and the schema already documents delay_minutes limits and the 404/403 agent_id errors. The description adds the crucial semantics the schema omits: sending steps or platforms replaces the whole existing set, and the server sorts steps by delay. The enabled flag still has neither a schema nor description explanation.

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: updating an agent's follow-up settings. This cleanly distinguishes it from the read counterpart get_follow_up_settings listed among siblings, though the description itself never names that sibling to reinforce the split. It is clear but relies on the tool name for sibling differentiation.

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?

Implicitly signals a partial-update tool by requiring at least one field ('Changes the parts you send'), and names the 422 no_settings failure when none are sent. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like update_agent, or any prerequisite note about needing a prior get_follow_up_settings read.

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