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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine behavioral value beyond them: 'Runs at once' (immediate effect, no staging) and 'earlier measurements keep the old wording' (historical data is not retroactively rewritten).

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 tight sentences with zero waste, and the action is front-loaded ahead of the side-effect note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key consequence (old measurements untouched) but omits permissions/auth requirements, whether the updated prompt is returned, and any explanation of the required parameters. Adequate but with clear gaps given 0% schema coverage.

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 0% and all three required parameters are undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'the wording of one tracked prompt' weakly implies text is the new wording and prompt_id identifies the target, but the 300-character cap and the project_id parameter are never addressed.

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: 'Replace the wording of one tracked prompt.' It is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutations like rename_topic or update_action_status, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the prepare_*/confirm_change workflow 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?

'Runs at once' implicitly signals that this is the immediate-execution path as opposed to the prepare_ then confirm_change sibling pattern, which is useful context. However, it never names that alternative or states when NOT to use this tool, leaving the routing to inference.

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