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 largely covered by structured data. The description adds the auth-scope requirement, which is genuine value beyond annotations, but says nothing about whether updates replace or merge fields or what is affected.

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 terse sentences with zero filler; the operation and its precondition are front-loaded, and nothing in the text is wasted.

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?

With full schema coverage and annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description supplies what is missing for a simple update: the write scope and the ID-based addressing. Only ambiguity around partial vs full update semantics remains, and the idempotent hint partially resolves that.

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 coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enum and the required id. The description's phrase 'by ID' merely restates the required parameter and adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema. 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 and resource ('Update an existing LoS measurement by ID'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the many closely-named siblings such as update_los_measure, update_los_consequence, and update_los_proposed_target, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the ID format 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 names a prerequisite scope (los_measurements:write), which is useful context, but gives no guidance on when to use this versus update_los_measure or other sibling update tools, and no when-not or alternative routing.

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