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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a useful non-annotation fact (requires compliance:write scope), but it never explains the destructive hint for a frequency/weight update or what happens to unspecified 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the mutating action, followed by the exclusion. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 three-param mutation with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers scope, editable fields, and the association-change workaround. It leaves one real gap: only id is required by the schema, so it never says what an update containing only id, or only one of the two fields, actually does.

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% and all three params are documented in the schema, including that id is a link ID resolved via list_compliance_pm_schedules. The description only restates the two updatable fields, adding no format or interaction detail beyond the schema, so 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) and the exact resource and editable fields (required frequency or weight of a compliance item to PM schedule link). The follow-up sentence explicitly separates this tool from create_compliance_pm_schedule/delete_compliance_pm_schedule by naming the association change it cannot do.

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 an explicit when-not with a concrete alternative: to repoint a link at a different item or schedule, delete it and create a new one. Also states the prerequisite scope (compliance:write), so the agent knows both what this tool covers and what it does not.

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