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

The description richly discloses behaviors beyond the annotations: partial update semantics, required 'edit' permission, parent grouping/ungrouping rules, rename propagation with non-blocking push and potential stale mirror state, and OUT_OF_SYNC rejection on stale baseUpdatedAt. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 core action is front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence addresses a distinct critical behavior: permissions, grouping, rename side effects, and concurrency guard. The description is dense but contains no filler.

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 an output schema exists and annotations cover the read/write safety profile, the description supplies everything else needed for correct invocation: authorization, concurrency requirements, side effects, and validation pointers. An agent can call this tool correctly with high confidence.

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?

The input schema has no properties, so the description carries the full parameter burden. It explains id, parent (including null for ungrouping), baseUpdatedAt/updatedAt usage, and points to validation rules and ordering defaults. This is far more useful than the empty schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'PUT updates to one adventure by id.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from imagine_update_adventure_page and imagine_update_world, and the scope ('one adventure') is 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?

The usage context is clear: this is the tool for updating an adventure, with explicit requirements like caller permission and a fresh baseUpdatedAt from imagine_get_adventure. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the resource-specific framing makes selection straightforward.

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