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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, leaving the mutation semantics undisclosed. The description adds that it updates status/progress/timestamps, which is useful, but it does not clarify whether 'full update' means a complete replacement (clearing unspecified fields) or a partial update, which is critical for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose without wordiness. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has a complex nested schema with many fields and a required 'agreement' object, but the description provides only a high-level phrase and no details on how to construct the input, what constitutes a 'full update', or what the output contains. The output schema exists but the description does not use it to guide the agent.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0% for the main 'agreement' parameter, with only nested UUID wrappers described. The description mentions 'status/progress/timestamps' but does not explain the required fields, the nested object structure, or the semantics of the numerous properties in the schema. This is insufficient for a complex nested parameter.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('applies a full update') and the resource ('cap table agreement'), and specifies the scope ('status/progress/timestamps'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'cap_table_update_cap_table_agreement_status', which only updates status.

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 phrase 'full update' implies this is for comprehensive changes, as opposed to targeted updates, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus the alternative status-only update tool. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided, though the naming and 'full update' hint at usage context.

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