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

Goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing that editing re-confirms the cost via a server-set cost_reviewed_on, that projections recompute immediately, and that a write scope is required. These are real behavioral facts an agent could not infer from structured fields. It does not clarify reversibility or partial-update semantics.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the operation, then side effects, then the key flag behavior, then the auth requirement. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be dropped without losing 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 19-parameter mutation with no output schema, it covers the operation's identity, a key side effect, a soft-delete path, and the required scope. It stops short of explaining partial-update behavior for the 18 optional fields or the response shape, but the schema carries those details reasonably well.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning on top: is_active is framed as a soft-delete/enable switch rather than a plain boolean, and unit_cost/fixed_cost changes are tied to the cost re-confirmation side effect. The remaining 17 parameters are left to 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 ('Update') and resource ('a lifecycle strategy event by ID'), so the operation is immediately identifiable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling update_asset_lifecycle_event, which an agent could confuse it with.

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?

Explicitly offers the alternative to deletion ('Set is_active false to disable an event without deleting it'), which routes the agent away from delete_infrastructure_lifecycle_event for a common case. It gives no other when-to-use framing or preconditions beyond the scope requirement.

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