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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description usefully adds the required auth scope, but leaves the surprising destructiveHint=true unexplained (an update flagged destructive) and says nothing about partial-vs-full update behavior.

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 that are front-loaded with the core purpose, then constraint, then permission. Tight and readable, with only the base_target restatement being slightly redundant against the schema.

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-param, no-output-schema mutation tool with full schema coverage and full annotations, the description supplies the extra auth requirement needed to call it correctly. The main omission is failing to clarify what the destructiveHint implies for this update.

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 baseline is 3. The one description-level parameter claim ('base_target stays on 0-100') merely restates the schema's min/max, adding no new semantics beyond structured data.

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+resource ('Update an infrastructure LoS target by ID'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from the sibling update_system_los_target and read paths like list_infrastructure_los_targets. It doesn't explicitly name what it is not, but the resource scoping is 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?

It surfaces one prerequisite ('Requires los_targets:write scope'), which is genuine usage context, but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not point to an alternative (e.g., resolving feature_class via list_infrastructure_feature_classes, which only the schema mentions). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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