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

Annotations are empty, so the description must carry behavior alone. It discloses partial-update behavior, the id source, the return value, the team restriction, and how nested overrides merge, plus the custom personality requirement. It does not mention error behavior or reversibility, but covers the key operational facts.

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?

Well organized: purpose first, then the partial-update rule, then the field list, then the scope restriction. No wasted sentences. Slight redundancy with schema (e.g., personality enum) but it adds eligible-value context, so it earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers partial-update semantics, return value, team scoping, required custom description, and nested-object mutation rules. It lacks explicit error/reversibility caveats, but for an update endpoint the essentials are present.

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 already describes every parameter well at 100% coverage Mend. The description adds real value: the agent id is a hashid from list_agents, omitting fields preserves them, personality presets are enumerated, custom requires caption, and unknown nested keys are rejected. This exceeds the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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?

Description opens with a precise verb+resource statement: 'Update one of the team's agents.' It clearly identifies the operation, the target resource, and what differentiates it (modifying existing agents) from sibling tools like list_agents or create_agent.

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?

Gives clear usage context: pass an agent id from list_agents, partial update semantics (only provided fields change), and a team-scope restriction. It points to helper tools (list_agents, describe_agent_settings) but never explicitly says when not to use it or contrasts with create_agent.

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