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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It adds useful context about OAuth-generated default names, but says nothing about whether omitted fields are preserved (partial vs full replace), whether name collisions fail, or what a successful call returns — notable gaps for a mutation tool with no output schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the relevant context. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 an all-optional, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description leaves key behavior (partial-update semantics, error cases, result) unspecified. It is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the name format constraint. The description only restates the field list, adding no syntax, format, or default information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change your name, description or capabilities') and names the exact fields affected, so an agent immediately knows what is being mutated. It is not explicitly contrasted with any sibling (e.g. whoami), but no sibling overlaps enough to create ambiguity.

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?

'Agents connected via OAuth get a generated name; pick a better one' gives a real when-to-use cue, but there is no when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites or alternatives, and no signal about whether this is meant only for OAuth-connected agents.

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