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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, writable, open-world behavior. The description adds the partial update semantic ('Send only what changes'), which is useful, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or reversibility.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the action and following with the key update constraint.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the essential partial-update behavior and some fields, but leaves several parameters and potential side effects 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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for name, status, notes, and difficulty, but omits category, description, and explicit mention of programId as required. It helps but is incomplete.

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 verb (renames/changes) and resource (program), and lists several updatable fields. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like update_program_day/update_program_week, but the program-level editing purpose is clear.

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?

'Send only what changes' gives a useful partial-update directive, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as update_program_day for adding days.

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