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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context annotations don't carry: the compliance:write scope requirement and the structural constraint that item/schedule references are immutable via this tool. It stops short of describing what unspecified fields do, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded, then auth, then the edge-case rule. No filler; every sentence carries distinct information.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations declaring idempotency and destructiveness, the description supplies the missing pieces: scope requirement and the re-pointing workaround. No output schema exists but a simple update confirmation is self-evident, so nothing critical is left out.

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 id, weight, and required_frequency_days are already documented including how to resolve the link ID via list_compliance_pm_schedules. The description names the two mutable fields but adds no syntactic or value-range detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Change) plus the exact fields affected (required frequency or weight) on a named resource (compliance item to PM schedule link). It is clearly distinguishable from create_compliance_pm_schedule and delete_compliance_pm_schedule.

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 a concrete when-not rule: to re-point a link at a different item or schedule, delete and recreate rather than update. It also surfaces the required scope proactively. It doesn't broadly contrast against other update_* siblings, but the exclusion is well targeted.

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