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 genuinely useful context beyond that: changing scope_type to 'global' clears scope_ref, other scope_type values require a matching scope_ref, and notification is advisory only. It also discloses the required 'los_consequences:write' scope, which annotations do not cover.

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 purpose, then the non-obvious field interaction, then the notification caveat, then the auth requirement. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and none repeats 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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the risky field interaction, the auth scope, and the notification side effect. It does not say whether unspecified fields are left untouched (partial vs full update) or what the response contains, which are minor but real gaps.

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 description goes beyond the schema by documenting the cross-field contract between scope_type and scope_ref (including the clearing behavior), which is exactly the kind of relational semantics a schema of independent field descriptions cannot express.

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 LoS consequence by ID'), which immediately distinguishes it from create_los_consequence, delete_los_consequence, and get_los_consequence. It doesn't explicitly name any sibling, but the resource+verb pairing 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?

Implied usage is clear (this is the mutation path for an existing consequence, addressed by ID), and the scope_type/scope_ref rules give conditional guidance for one field. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus e.g. bulk_update or delete_los_consequence, and no prerequisite workflow (resolve IDs first, etc.) is described beyond what the schema already says.

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