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 genuine context beyond that: the scope_type/scope_ref mutation rule, that no notification is actually sent despite notify_roles existing, and the required los_consequences:write scope (auth requirement). The 'advisory only' note does not contradict the destructive annotation, which concerns data mutation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the conditional field rule, then the side-effect note, then the auth prerequisite. Every sentence carries operational information and none restates 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 edge case (scope transitions), the real side-effect behavior (nothing sent), and the permission requirement. It is nearly complete; only the update semantics for the other optional fields (metric, severity, active) are left entirely to the schema.

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%, giving a baseline of 3, and the description earns an extra point by documenting the cross-field dependency between scope_type and scope_ref that the schema fields describe only in isolation. It does not explain the metric/severity/active filters, but those are self-documenting 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a LoS consequence by ID'), making the target object unambiguous even in a sibling list containing many update_* tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with neighboring tools such as update_los_measure or update_los_proposed_target, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 description covers a key conditional workflow (changing scope_type to global clears scope_ref; other types require a matching scope_ref), which is useful invocation guidance. However, it never says when to choose this tool over the many other update_* siblings, nor any preconditions beyond the write scope.

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