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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: partial updates ('omitted fields unchanged'), side effect of status change ('re-stamps the decision time'), link verification ('verified in-org'), and clearing with nulls. This goes well beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint provided.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the primary action in the first sentence. Every sentence adds useful behavioral or operational detail without padding or redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return behavior ('return it'), id resolution, field semantics, and special cases like relinking and clearing. It is complete for safe invocation of this update 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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical semantics: 'omitted fields unchanged', 'only id is required', and the relationship between link_type and link_id ('Re-link via link_type + link_id ... or clear with nulls'). This meaningfully enhances the 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Update a decision and return it'), clearly distinguishing it from create_decision and list_decisions. It also states key behavioral scope with 'omitted fields unchanged', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Resolve the id via list_decisions; only id is required' tells the agent how to obtain the required identifier. It also explains optional behaviors like status re-stamping and link handling, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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