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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context beyond them: partial-update semantics ('Only the fields given change') and pause/resume via active. It does not detail destructive side effects, but the partial-update note meaningfully refines mutation behavior.

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 dense sentences front-load the field list and partial-update rule, with the id-source instruction at the end. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 8-param mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies essential context: mutable fields, partial-update behavior, and id sourcing. Slightly more could be said about error conditions or workspace placement, but nothing critical is missing.

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 every parameter is already fully documented with enums, null semantics, and limits. The description largely restates the same fields without adding new meaning, so the baseline of 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 ('Change') and resource ('Comment to DM rule'), enumerates the mutable fields, and clarifies partial-update behavior. It routes the agent to list_comment_dm_rules for the id, distinguishing it from create/delete siblings.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite (get the rule id from list_comment_dm_rules) and states that only supplied fields change. It does not explicitly name when not to use this tool or compare with update_dm_automation, but the context is unambiguous.

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