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

Annotations already declare it a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: partial-update behavior, a module-setting prerequisite, and precise folder tri-state semantics (omit, ID, null/clearFolder). It doesn't cover error behavior or return values, but with annotations present this is a solid disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core update behavior, then important edge-case semantics. Every sentence adds specific value with 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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral edge cases (partial update, folder tri-state, script module setting). It could mention error conditions or return structure, but the essential calling information is present.

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 parameters are already documented. The description nevertheless adds crucial meaning for the folder parameter's tri-state behavior and the clearFolder override, plus the script-macro precondition for command/type. This is more than repeating the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a macro') and clarifies partial-update semantics ('omitted fields stay unchanged'). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like macro-create or macro-get, but the operation is unmistakable.

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?

Provides actionable preconditions: script macros or changing type to 'script' require the Allow Script Macros module setting. The folder tri-state rule gives clear guidance on how to move or clear a macro. However, it doesn't name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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