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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: 'Pass all steps -- mark removed steps with is_deleted=true. Existing steps must include their id.' This reveals how the update operates (full replacement of steps required), which is beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, then concise instructions. Every sentence provides value without repetition or fluff. Ideal length for such a tool.

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 complexity (11 parameters, nested step types), the description covers the most critical aspect (steps update behavior). It doesn't mention return value or validation, but these are not required as there is no output schema. The schema handles optional parameters. Sufficient for an update tool with rich schema.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions, so baseline 3. The description adds crucial meaning for the steps parameter: it explains the requirement to include all steps, mark deletions, and include ids for existing steps. This is not obvious from the schema alone. Other parameters are adequately described in schema.

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 'Update an existing nurture campaign' with specific verb+resource. It provides instructions on handling steps (mark removed with is_deleted=true, include ids for existing steps). This distinguishes from sibling tools like hires_create_nurture_campaign and hires_delete_nurture_campaign.

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 gives clear instructions on how to correctly update steps (pass all, mark removals, include ids). It doesn't explicitly discuss when to use update vs create or delete, but the name and context make it clear. Lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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