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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the action being limited to the caller's own row and that no other fields can be altered, which aligns with the non-destructive hint and provides a clear safety boundary. There is no contradiction.

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 two sentences: the first establishes purpose and scenario, the second clarifies scope. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no repetitive or extraneous information.

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 narrowly-scoped tool with only 2 parameters and an output schema present, the description fully conveys purpose, when to use it, and its exact scope. It leaves no critical gaps, especially given the output schema already defines return structures.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters at 100% ('Human-readable name (1-255 Unicode chars)' and 'UUID value wrapper'). The description adds context about the name being the corrected name the company holds, but it does not materially deepen the meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'lets an investor correct the name the company holds for them.' It specifies the verb 'correct' and the resource 'name', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it is scoped to the caller's own stakeholder row and only changes the name, unlike broader cap_table_update_cap_table_stakeholder.

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 provides a concrete use case (misspelled name on a SAFE) and explains this is a self-service fix for investors, removing the need to ask a founder. It also states a clear limitation ('nothing else on the row can be changed this way'), which effectively excludes using this tool for other updates. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or offer direct comparisons beyond the scope statement.

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