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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond them by naming the required los_targets:write scope and by explaining the direction/effect of the modifier value on facility targets.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the semantic effect and the auth requirement. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy or 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 simple 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing auth scope and the domain meaning of the modifier. It stops short of clarifying partial-update behavior (e.g. whether omitting 'modifier' or 'criticality' is allowed), which would be the last useful addition.

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 the 'modifier' field's schema text ('below 1 tightens, above 1 relaxes') essentially duplicates the description's second sentence. The description adds no syntax, format, or partial-update behavior details beyond what the schema already provides, 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+resource ('Update a criticality modifier override by ID') and goes further by explaining what the modifier semantically controls (tightening/relaxing facility targets in the tier). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling operations like create_criticality_modifier or bulk_update, but the name and ID-based framing make the operation unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by 'update ... by ID' (an existing override must exist), and the los_targets:write scope prerequisite is a genuinely useful gating condition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of bulk_update or the create/delete siblings for someone choosing an operation.

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