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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required scope (los_measurements:write), which is useful authorization context, but it says nothing about whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved, which matters a great deal for a destructive update.

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, the operation and its addressing key front-loaded, followed by the authorization prerequisite. No filler, 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?

No output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the mutation-safety story. The remaining gap is partial-vs-full update semantics for a tool whose annotation says destructiveHint=true — an agent cannot tell whether omitting `notes` erases existing notes, which is exactly the kind of detail this definition should provide.

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% with all 7 parameters documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that 'id' is the addressing key; it adds no detail about the mutable fields (notes, period bounds, actual_value, period_type enum, is_auto).

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 (existing LoS measurement) identified by ID, which cleanly separates it from create_los_measurement, delete_los_measurement, get_los_measurement and list_los_measurements. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the verb/resource 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?

'Update an existing LoS measurement by ID' implies the usage condition (the record already exists, you have its ID) and the required write scope is a genuine prerequisite. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of how to obtain the ID, and no pointer to create_los_measurement for records that don't yet exist.

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