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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: the required infrastructure_zones:write scope (auth prerequisite) and the key semantic that boundary 'replaces' the existing geometry rather than merging.

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, zero filler, with the resource/verb front-loaded and the scope constraint in a discrete final sentence. Every sentence 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 7-param mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the key geometry-replacement behavior, and the required scope. It does not clarify what happens to optional fields left out or the response shape, but the description is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents id, code, kind, name, notes, boundary, and network_id. The description only adds the replacement semantics of boundary and repeats the GeoJSON Polygon/MultiPolygon types the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 zone by ID.' An agent can distinguish this from the create/delete/get/list zone siblings by the resource and CRUD verb alone. It does not explicitly name a sibling to avoid, which keeps it short of 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?

Usage is implied by 'Update ... by ID' and the note that boundary replaces geometry, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions (e.g. vs bulk_update or update_infrastructure_network), and only a scope prerequisite is given.

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