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 mutation/idempotency profile is covered structurally. The description contributes the non-obvious auth requirement (los_measures:write). It omits the one thing that matters most for a 16-field update: whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the identifying operation ('by ID') comes before the scope prerequisite. Nothing to trim.

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 destructive, non-readonly tool with 16 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is thin: it never states partial-update semantics, whether updates are full-replacement, or any return/confirmation behavior. The scope note is welcome but does not fill the gap an agent faces when deciding which fields to send.

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% and all 16 parameters (including enums and theB data_source_config) are documented inline. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema-disclosed baseline of 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 ('Update') and resource ('LoS measure') and disambiguates by ID, which cleanly separates it from create/delete/get_los_measure. However it does not distinguish itself from the very similarly named sibling update_los_measurement, leaving that pair to be told apart by name inspection alone.

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 adds a real prerequisite ('Requires los_measures:write scope'), which is genuine usage guidance an agent needs before calling. But it offers no when-to-use vs. when-not context and no routing to alternatives such as update_los_measurement for measurement records.

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