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

Annotations only state openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It adds useful behavioral detail like refusal during an active filing and the non-editable share/vesting fields. However, it doesn't disclose whether omitted fields are preserved, whether partial updates are supported, or what side effects occur.

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?

Three short sentences: the first states the tool's action and target, the second adds the critical timing restriction, and the third clarifies what is not editable. Every sentence earns its place and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 10-parameter tool with nested objects, the description is still understandable enough for an agent to select and invoke it. The tool has an output schema, so return-value details are not required. The main missing context is the behavior when only IDs are passed and whether the update is a merge or full replacement.

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?

With schema description coverage of only 20%, the description's field list — name, contact details, ownership percentage, role, address — adds real meaning that the schema does not. It gives a helpful high-level map to the parameters, but it does not address addressType, enum semantics, or the required identifier wrappers in detail.

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: it "Corrects one owner on a formation" and enumerates exactly which fields may be changed. It also distinguishes itself from related formation tools by saying share counts and vesting are not editable here.

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 makes clear this tool is for correcting an existing owner's data, and it gives an important exclusion: the operation is refused once the filing is underway. It does not explicitly name alternatives like formation_add_shareholder or formation_set_share_structure, but the scope is clear enough to separate it from siblings.

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