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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: editing re-confirms cost with cost_reviewed_on server-set, disabling recomputes projections immediately, and the call requires infrastructure_lifecycle_events:write scope. These disclose side effects and auth needs that the destructive/idempotent hints do not convey, though it does not explain why a mere update is flagged destructive.

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, each carrying distinct value (purpose, cost side effect, disable semantics, scope), and the core action is front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 and annotations present, the description covers the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs. It omits partial-update semantics (only the one required id plus supplied fields change), which would be useful given the wide optional parameter set.

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 all 19 parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description only adds semantics for cost_reviewed_on (server-set) and is_active=false, which are marginal over 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 lifecycle strategy event by ID'), which cleanly separates it from the create/delete/list siblings that share the same resource. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts with a sibling (e.g., update vs create), leaving differentiation to inference from the verb.

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 a concrete usage rule: set is_active false to disable an event without deleting it, which routes the agent away from the delete sibling for a common case. It lacks general when-to-use framing or prerequisites beyond the scope note, so it stops short of explicit alternatives guidance.

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