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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the HTTP endpoint, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the update overwrites the entire section or how empty content is handled (though the schema covers this). No contradiction with annotations.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a necessary constraint. No fluff or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 rich schema (100% coverage) and existing annotations, the description sufficiently explains the core purpose and allowed field values. It does not need to repeat parameter details or return values, though it could clarify the update semantics (overwrite vs merge), which prevents a higher score.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description only repeats the enum values for 'field' already present in the schema, adding no new meaning to the parameters.

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 a specific action: 'Update one instruction column on a version via POST /v1/update-instruction.' It identifies the resource (instruction column on a version) and differentiates from siblings like save-agent-version by specifying it updates only one column, not the entire version.

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 context (updates a single instruction column) and lists allowed field values, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like save-agent-version or activate-agent-version. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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