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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description discloses that the update is partial (PATCH-like), that it returns the full updated object, and that it is Space-scoped with an override option. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return behavior; the second sentence efficiently handles Space scoping. No wasted words, every clause adds necessary 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly states the return value (full updated object) and explains Space scoping. It does not cover edge cases like validation limits (e.g., lookback window caps), but the schema descriptions for some fields provide partial coverage. Adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly in most cases.

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 67% (body and space_id have descriptions; conversion_action_id does not). The description adds examples of updatable fields (status, value settings, lookback window) and clarifies that body fields are optional, but it doesn't compensate for the undocumented conversion_action_id or detail all nested fields.

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 performs a partial update of a conversion action, giving concrete examples (status, value settings, lookback window). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it returns the full updated object, and the resource is 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?

Provides valuable context: the operation is scoped to the active Space, with explicit instructions on how to switch via set_active_space or override per call with space_id. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid using this tool or name alternatives like create/delete, but the context is clear.

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