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 safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds a genuinely useful fact beyond that: the required 'systems:write' scope. It does not explain the destructive semantics (what an update overwrites) or partial-vs-full replacement behavior.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the action and the keying constraint front-loaded ahead of the permission requirement. Nothing 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?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema and fully documented params, the definition covers what it does, how it is keyed, and the required scope. It stops short of the update semantics an agent would want: whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, and what the destructiveHint actually implies here.

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 all five parameters (id, name, description, crv_multiplier, system_group_id) are documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes the ID keying and adds no meaning about the mutable fields. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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), a specific resource (system), and the keying mechanism ('by ID'), which cleanly distinguishes it from create_system and delete_system in the sibling list. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate from bulk_update or update_system_group.

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?

Usage is only implied: it is an update tool keyed by ID. There is no statement of when to prefer this over bulk_update, no preconditions beyond the scope note, and no exclusions. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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