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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral fact the annotations cannot carry: the required los_targets:write scope, plus the directional effect on facility targets. It stops short of describing downstream impact or reversibility.

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 action and identifier, then semantics, then the permission requirement. No filler or repetition.

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 with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, value semantics, and auth scope. It would be stronger if it noted what happens to already-applied targets or whether the change is reversible, but the destructive annotation already signals mutation risk.

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 schema already documents id, modifier, and criticality, including the 0.1-1.9 bounds and the tighten/relax meaning. The description's restatement of the tighten/relax rule largely duplicates the modifier field description, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 (Update) and resource (criticality modifier override) plus the keying parameter (by ID), which cleanly separates it from create_criticality_modifier, delete_criticality_modifier, and list_criticality_modifiers. The added semantic of what a modifier does makes the resource's meaning 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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the edit path for an existing modifier because it takes an ID and the siblings cover create/delete/list. There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus those alternatives, and no prerequisites beyond the scope note.

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