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

The description states that only some fields can be changed, restricts values to registry ids, and explains the active-space default and per-call override. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) by clarifying scoping and partial-update behavior.

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?

Two tightly worded sentences. The action and fields are front-loaded, and the Space-scoping override is placed immediately after. No filler or redundant restating of schema details.

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 small partial-update tool, the description covers the core invocation context: what fields can be updated, registry-id restriction, active Space scoping, and the per-call override mechanism. It does not mention return values, but with no output schema present, that would be a larger gap if the operation were more complex.

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?

The description adds meaning to body and space_id (partial updates, registry ids, space override/default). However, it omits the businessId field from the list of updatable fields, and angle_id relies on its schema name for meaning. With 67% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but does not fully document every parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Partially update an angle (name, status, angleType — registry ids only).' It clearly distinguishes itself from create/delete/get angle tools by emphasizing partial update semantics and enumerates the relevant fields.

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?

It explicitly scopes the operation to the active Space, directs the agent to set_active_space for switching, and offers space_id as a per-call override. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use alternatives like create_angle or delete_angle, but the partial-update wording makes the primary use case clear.

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