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

The annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful partial-update behavior ('Send only what changes'), but it does not mention validation behavior, failure modes for invalid assessment IDs, permission requirements, or side effects beyond changing supplied fields.

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 description is two short sentences with no wasted wording, and the key purpose and partial-update instruction are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information provided.

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 an eight-parameter mutation tool with low schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is quite sparse. It establishes the update intent and partial-update convention, but it leaves the meaning of most editable fields, the required assessmentId dependency, and update constraints unaddressed.

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 description coverage is only 25%, with just date and assessmentId described in the schema, while six optional measurement/notes fields lack documentation. The description's 'Send only what changes' helps explain that fields are optional and partial, but it does not identify or clarify the editable fields themselves.

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?

The description states a specific action and resource: fixing values of an assessment that is already saved. The phrase 'already saved' helps distinguish it from create_assessment, though it does not explicitly name siblings or enumerate editable fields.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use this on an existing assessment, and 'Send only what changes' indicates partial-update behavior. It does not explicitly state when to choose update_assessment over related tools like create_assessment or archive_assessment, but the existing-record condition is clear.

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