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. The description adds a non-annotation behavioral fact — the required los_targets:write scope — which is exactly the kind of auth context that helps an agent. The base_target range note duplicates the schema, keeping it from a 5.

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 resource, with the auth prerequisite last. Tight overall, though the base_target sentence repeats structured information and earns little.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the essentials are present: resource, identifier, scope requirement, and value constraint. It could note partial-update semantics (only id is required) but is otherwise sufficient.

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%, with each parameter documented (id, active, metric enum, base_target range, feature_class pattern and resolution hint), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter detail beyond restating the base_target 0-100 bound already in 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?

The description states a specific verb (Update) and resource (an infrastructure LoS target) plus the identifier used to select it, which clearly separates it from other update_* siblings such as update_system_los_target and update_los_proposed_target. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 "Requires los_targets:write scope" line gives a real prerequisite for invocation, but there is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. get_infrastructure_los_target first to fetch current values, or bulk_update for multiple targets). Usage is implied at best.

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