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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It contributes the auth requirement (floorplan_regions:write scope), which is genuine added value, but does not explain reversibility, partial-update semantics, or what the destructive behavior actually affects.

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-loading the core operation before the scope prerequisite. No filler and every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description gives the agent the updateable dimensions plus the scope requirement, which is nearly enough to invoke it correctly. The only gap is the unmentioned confidence parameter and partial-vs-full update behavior.

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 83% and each parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the updateable fields (rename, polygon, location link, reviewed) which maps to label, polygon, location_id, reviewed, but omits the confidence parameter and adds no format or coordinate details beyond the schema.

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 and resource ("Update a floorplan region") and enumerates the actual operations available (rename, reshape polygon, link to Location, mark reviewed), letting an agent map the description directly onto updateable fields. The 'update_' prefix and the resource clearly distinguish it from the sibling create_/delete_/get_/list_floorplan_region tools.

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?

The description names the required scope (floorplan_regions:write) which hints at a mutation context, but it never states when to prefer this tool over the create/get/delete siblings or what preconditions must hold. Usage is only implied by the tool name and enumerated fields rather than explicit guidance.

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