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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, yet the description adds nothing about what the destruction means — whether the previous name is lost, whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved, or whether auth/verification is required. Given destructiveHint=true on a seemingly innocuous rename, the absence of any cautionary context is a notable gap.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence's wording ("a registration's proprietor name") is grammatically awkward and takes a moment to parse, which costs a point but not efficiency.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, so the description carries most of the burden — and it omits the effect of partial updates, the consequence of the destructive hint, and any auth prerequisites. An agent could call it, but cannot predict the result of supplying only one name field.

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 neither parameter is required or documented, so the schema alone does not explain behavior on omission. The phrase "first and/or last name" does add genuine meaning by signaling that either or both fields may be supplied, partially compensating for the undocumented schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Change their account name (first and/or last name)") and explicitly distinguishes it from the registration/proprietor name path handled by siblings like update_registration_fields and rename_business. It is not a tautology, though the phrasing "their account name" is slightly ambiguous about whose profile is affected (the caller's own vs. a workspace member's).

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 negative constraint "Not a registration's proprietor name" implicitly routes the agent away from this tool when editing business registration data, which is real guidance. However, it never states the positive condition (e.g. "use when the user wants to change their own display/account name") or names the sibling to use instead, so selection still requires inference.

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