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/safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful non-annotation fact — 'Requires systems:write scope' — but omits whether an update is partial or full-replacement, which matters a lot given destructiveHint=true.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. Nothing in the text is redundant or padded.

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 the description needn't explain returns, and the schema plus annotations carry most of the burden. Still, for a destructive update tool in a family of near-identical updaters, the description should say more about partial-update behavior and how it differs from its siblings.

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 five parameters (id, name, description, crv_multiplier, system_group_id) are fully documented structurally and the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the 'by ID' concept and adds no semantics about which fields are updatable or how crv_multiplier/system_group_id are interpreted.

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 system by ID'), which cleanly identifies the operation among a large sibling set that includes create_system, delete_system, and list_systems. It does not, however, differentiate itself from update_system_class, update_system_group, or update_system_los_target beyond naming the resource.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any exclusions. The only contextual detail is the auth scope requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than usage direction, so an agent gets no help choosing between update_system and update_system_class.

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