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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the required write scope and the mutation restriction on the built-in Archived status, which are behavioral facts not present in the annotations or schema.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and key (ID), followed by the two most decision-relevant constraints. No filler.

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 full schema coverage, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces (scope requirement, Archived edge case). Slightly brief on error/behavioral outcomes but complete enough to call correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that on Archived statuses only name and description are mutable, effectively constraining which of the four parameters can take effect in that case.

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?

"Update an existing asset status by ID" states a specific verb (update) and resource (asset status) with the identifying key. An agent can immediately distinguish this from create_asset_status, delete_asset_status, get_asset_status, and list_asset_statuses.

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?

Provides a prerequisite (asset_statuses:write scope) and a specific exclusion/limitation (on the built-in Archived status only name and description can change). It does not name sibling alternatives, but gives clear context for when constraints apply.

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