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

Annotations only declare this is a non-read-only write, but the description adds the crucial behavioral trait that omitted flags and lock are RESET by a PUT and must be re-sent to be preserved. That data-loss warning goes well beyond the structured fields and is exactly the kind of context that prevents an agent from silently wiping values.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then merge behavior, then the reset warning, then the alternative. No filler; every sentence carries actionable information for a nested-object tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the tricky write semantics for this nested-payload update. Auth/permission expectations are unstated, but for this complexity the description is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description exceeds it by explaining the merge semantics of 'content' (send only changed keys, arrays for metadata) and which fields a PUT requires. It adds real meaning beyond the field-level schema descriptions.

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 and resource ('Update an interface contract') and immediately distinguishes the operation from its closest sibling by steering partial edits to interface_contracts_patch. An agent can tell this apart from the PATCH variant without opening either schema.

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?

'Prefer interface_contracts_patch for partial edits' names the alternative and the condition that selects it, which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of explicitly stating when a full PUT (as opposed to a patch) is the right choice, leaving that condition to inference.

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