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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false), and the description's 'Update' aligns with that. The description adds a specific behavioral trait: 'Does not modify individual results', which clarifies the scope of the mutation. No additional side effects or permissions are mentioned, but the given annotations cover the safety profile sufficiently.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and key scope, and adds a crucial exclusion at the end. There is no fluff or redundancy; every part earns its place.

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 simple update tool with full schema coverage, an output schema absent, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides the essential facts: what it updates and what it does not. It could explicitly mention partial-update behavior (only provided fields change), but that is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a description in the schema. The description adds only a brief mention of example fields ('name, formula, replacement mode, etc.'), which doesn't provide new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already contains. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'roll table's properties', listing example fields (name, formula, replacement mode). It also explicitly distinguishes itself by stating 'Does not modify individual results', which differentiates it from other roll-table tools like roll-table-roll or roll-table-reset. This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides clear context for when to use it (updating properties) and includes an exclusion ('Does not modify individual results') that hints at what it is not for. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for modifying results or resetting, so guidance on alternatives is only implicit. Still, the boundary is clear enough.

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