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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the change is staged in a draft until publish_gateway, and a call is capped at 50 tools. It doesn't say whether omitted fields are left untouched or reset, which is the main remaining behavioral unknown for a partial-update call.

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 short sentences: editable fields first, staging semantics second, batch limit last. Nothing is redundant, and the most decision-relevant fact for an agent (draft-only until publish) is placed where it will be read.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent batch mutation with no output schema, the description covers the editable fields, the match key, the batch cap, and the staging model. The gap is update semantics for omitted fields and error behavior on unknown tool names, which matter for a 50-item batch but are secondary against annotations that already signal idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 reported at 0% for top-level parameters, and the description compensates only partially: 'by tool name' clarifies that the name field is the match key rather than a new value, which is meaningful. The 'Up to 50 tools per call' statement merely restates maxItems=50 from the schema, and gateway_id plus the title/enabled/description fields receive no added meaning.

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 concrete verb list tied to a specific resource ('Rename tools, change their titles or descriptions, or turn them on or off'), so an agent knows exactly which fields this mutates. It distinguishes itself implicitly from publish_gateway by naming that as the separate commit step, though it never explicitly contrasts with update_gateway.

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 sentence 'Only the draft changes until publish_gateway' gives a clear usage context and points to the follow-up tool needed to make changes live, which is the key decision an agent faces here. It stops short of stating exclusions, e.g. that this is not the tool for creating or deleting tools, or what to do if a tool name doesn't exist.

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