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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that if the title matches multiple active objectives, the tool refuses and lists them, requiring an objective_id to disambiguate. It also mentions approval requirements for first use and the meaning of just-once vs. from-now-on approvals.

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 two paragraphs of moderate length. The first paragraph directly states the tool's function, while the second adds approval context. It is generally concise, though the approval note could be considered slightly verbose for its marginal benefit.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation behavior) and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is updated, how to identify the objective, disambiguation rules, and approval flow. It lacks explicit mention of what is returned on success/failure, but the refusal behavior is well-explained.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context about the identification options (objective_id vs. objective_title) and the disambiguation behavior, but it does not add new details about parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 it updates an existing objective's title, description, or year. It specifies the verb 'update' and the resource 'objective', and lists the updatable fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_objective and delete_objective.

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 context: 'Use when the operator wants to rename or reword an objective or move it to another year — the OKR edit door for agents.' It also explains the disambiguation behavior when multiple objectives match. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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