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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. Beyond that, the description adds genuine value by disclosing optimistic-concurrency behavior ('conflicting edits are refused') and the concurrency token source, which the annotations do not cover.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste: the core action, the concurrency/return behavior, and the sibling routing. The scope and exclusion information is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and the nested patch fields are schema-documented. It covers concurrency and routing well; the only minor gap is not restating partial-update/empty-value semantics, which the schema already handles.

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 67%, so the nested patch fields (including empty-value clearing semantics) are largely documented in the schema itself. The description restates expectedRevision's stale-refusal behavior rather than adding new parameter detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Updates supplied artist profile fields') with clear scope. It also explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming photos, voices, identity kind, and Film casting as separate operations, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schemas.

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 when-to-use context (profile field edits) and lists explicit exclusions that route to other tools. It implies a read-then-write flow via 'expectedRevision from the current profile' but does not spell out the prerequisite of reading the latest revision first.

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