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

It discloses important, non-schema behaviors beyond the annotations: ownership must total exactly 100%, existing people are matched by id and only stated fields change, and failed invitations are reported without blocking the filing. These constraints and failure semantics add real behavioral context that annotations alone (openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not contain.

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 three sentences and each sentence contributes a distinct fact: core purpose, constraint, partial-update semantics, and failure handling. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the action, then the critical invariants.

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?

Given the nested member and vesting objects and only 25% schema coverage, the description still leaves a meaningful ambiguity: it never clarifies whether all existing team members must be present, how omitted members are treated, or how election83bIntent affects the filing. While it covers the most important operational rules, the omission of these details makes it incomplete for a complex mutate operation.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for ownershipPercentage (total must equal 100%), members (id-matched partial update), and invite behavior (failures reported). However, it leaves election83bIntent completely unexplained and adds no detail about vesting semantics (custom schedule, cliffMonths, totalMonths, startDate meaning, top-level versus per-member vesting), so the compensation is only partial.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Sets the founding team's ownership split and vesting.' It goes beyond a tautology by adding an exact constraint (ownership must total 100%) and by saying existing people are matched by id and only present fields change, which signals update semantics rather than member creation. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like formation_add_shareholder or formation_set_share_structure.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer formation_add_shareholder for new people or formation_update_shareholder for individual updates. The only hint is 'founding team's' and 'existing people are matched by id', which implies an update-to-existing-team scenario but never states exclusions or selection rules.

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