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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing patch semantics ('only the fields you pass change'), the destructive replace behavior of outletIds with its silent failure mode, and the fact that email is immutable because sign-in identity is not rotated. That is exactly the kind of consequence detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and fields, then the warnings in descending severity; the em-dash asides are slightly dense but each sentence carries distinct, decision-relevant information. No filler or restated title.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, destructive semantics, and adjacent-tool routing. It does not mention permission/role requirements for the caller or what the response returns, which are minor but real gaps.

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 50% and the description compensates: it explains which fields are editable, the role of userId (id not name), and the replace-vs-omit semantics of outletIds including the consequence of misuse. It does not add format or constraint detail for phone/pincode beyond what the schema already carries.

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 ('Change a team member's own details') and enumerates the mutable fields: name, phone, till PIN, outlet assignments. The negative scoping ('does NOT change permissions') cleanly separates it from assign_role and hub_update_role.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites (userId comes from get_team, never a name), a mandatory pre-read workflow for outletIds, and names the alternative tool for the adjacent task (assign_role). It also states the one thing the tool cannot do and the manual workaround for it.

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