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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is largely supplied. The description adds genuine value with the partial-update guarantee (omitted fields are unchanged), but it never warns that replacing content is a destructive, irreversible overwrite, which is the key behavioral risk here.

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?

A single clause-delimited sentence that front-loads the action and its fields, then closes with the mutation semantics. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutable fields, the source of the required ID, and merge behavior. It stops short of stating what happens with an unknown snippet_id or the destructive nature flagged in annotations, which keeps it from a 5.

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 only 25% (only snippet_id is documented), yet the description names all three optional parameters and explains the merge semantics that the schema cannot express — omitted fields are preserved. Length limits and types still come only from the schema, which is acceptable.

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 ("Cambia") and resource ("un texto de list_saved_texts") and enumerates the three mutable fields (categoría, etiqueta, contenido). It does not explicitly contrast with create_saved_text or delete_saved_text, but the naming and the partial-update clause make the intent unambiguous.

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 mention of list_saved_texts implicitly tells the agent where snippet_id comes from, and "lo que no pases queda igual" clarifies when to supply a subset of fields. There is no explicit when-not guidance or routing away from sibling tools such as create_saved_text or update_draft_texts.

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