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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description is not carrying that burden. It still adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: this is a partial/patch update where only supplied fields change, and is_active=false is the documented way to pause a supplement without deleting it. It stops short of saying what else is destroyed or which permissions are needed.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the partial-update rule is placed at the end as an instruction the agent will act on. The phrasing "pauses (is_active false) a supplement" is grammatically awkward and costs a beat of comprehension.

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 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the headline edits and the patch semantics but omits several supported fields entirely and says nothing about the response or whether pausing preserves scheduling data. Adequate to call correctly in the common case, incomplete at the edges.

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 45% across 11 parameters, so the description has to compensate. It does explain dose, times, days-of-week and the is_active pause flag, but leaves name, notes, dose_unit, dose_amount, units_per_take and end_date undocumented outside the sparse schema — more than half the surface.

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 (changes) and resource (a student's supplement), and enumerates the editable dimensions: dose, times, days, and pausing via is_active false. It is clearly distinct from add_student_supplement, though it never explicitly names the sibling the way a top-tier definition would.

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 useful partial-update guidance, implying that omitted fields are left untouched. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus add_student_supplement, nor any prerequisite such as reading the supplement first via list_student_supplements (that hint only appears in the schema).

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