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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the partial-update semantics ('Only modifies provided fields'), the mutual-exclusion rule between clear_fields and value params, the empty-string prohibition, and the ValueError conditions. It stops short of stating reversibility or permission requirements, but the behavioral burden is largely carried.

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 primary purpose, then a scoping sentence, then focused paragraphs on the fiddly interactive_buttons and instructions behavior. Well-organized, though the interactive-buttons paragraph is dense and could be tightened.

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 9-param mutation tool that is part of a large sibling family, the description covers partial-update semantics, the exception routing for instructions, the clear_fields mechanism, and error conditions. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Nothing material is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema cannot express: the clear_fields/param mutual-exclusion rule, that clear_fields reverts to canonical defaults vs NULL, and the prohibition on empty strings for interactive_buttons_behavior. These clarify non-obvious interaction between parameters, exceeding the schema's per-field text.

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+resource ('Update an agent's identity and model settings') and explicitly carves out the sibling-managed domains (instructions, access, appearance, knowledge, traits, data collection). An agent can distinguish this from gnosari_manage_instructions or gnosari_manage_traits without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tools for the excluded domains ('use dedicated tools', 'managed by gnosari_manage_instructions'), states the precondition that at least one field must be provided, and documents the single exception where instructions clearing lives here. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both fully covered.

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