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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers two non-obvious traits: existing links keep working after edits, and added recipients are silently NOT emailed. What it omits is equally important mutation semantics — whether supplying `sections` or `schema` replaces existing content wholesale, and what error/response occurs when the time window has passed.

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?

Four sentences, zero filler, and the most consequential constraint (the first-response cutoff) is stated first. Each sentence carries a distinct rule rather than restating the field list.

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 9-parameter mutation with nested objects, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the temporal gating, the link-stability guarantee, and the recipient-notification workaround. It falls short on replacement semantics for nested fields and on permission/error preconditions, which an agent calling this correctly would want.

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 33%, so the description should compensate more than it does. It adds real meaning for `expiresIn` ('a new expiry counted from now' — resets, does not extend) and for `addRecipients` (no email sent), but leaves the highest-risk parameters, `schema` and `sections` (nested objects, replace vs merge), unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Change') and enumerates exactly which request fields are editable, plus the distinct group (addRecipients, expiresIn, notifyEmail) governed by a different rule. An agent can immediately tell this is a field-level patch on an existing request rather than a create/close operation, and the mention of 'remind' anchors it against a named sibling.

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 explicit, differentiated timing rules: title/schema/sections/reason/theme only 'until the first response', while addRecipients/expiresIn/notifyEmail work 'until the request is closed, expired or complete'. It also routes the agent to an alternative ('send their links, or call remind with their recipientIds') for the follow-up notification case.

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