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

Annotations already declare the risk profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds that old and new values are recorded for comparison — useful context on persistence. It does not state that the existing price is overwritten, nor whether history entries can be undone, so the destructiveHint=true implication is softened rather than explained.

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 short sentences, with the action front-loaded and the clarifying constraint (manual correction, not tracking) last. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries distinct information.

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 single-field mutation with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers purpose, scope, and the side effect of recording history. Only minor gaps remain: overlapping responsibility with update_item and any authorization requirement.

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 the schema already documents id, price, reason, and source, and the description adds no format or value guidance for any of them. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Manually update the price on a saved item") and scopes it as a price-only mutation, which implicitly separates it from the broader update_item sibling. It never names the sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer which of update_item vs update_price to pick.

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?

"This is a manual correction, not automatic price tracking" sketches when the tool applies, which is more than nothing. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no precondition (e.g., when to prefer update_item for other fields), so the routing guidance stays implied.

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