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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds valuable context: partial update semantics (omitted fields retained), return behavior (full updated/created object), and space scoping. It could mention prerequisites or error conditions, but the provided info is sufficient.

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 action, followed by a concise scoping note. No redundant words or repetition 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?

Given no output schema, the description includes the return type (full object). It covers the active Space context, which is critical for multi-space usage. Missing details about error handling or whether the keyword must exist are minor gaps; overall it is complete enough for a partial update tool.

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 schema already covers most parameters (67% coverage). The description adds meaning by specifying partial update scope and explicitly mentioning matchType/status as examples. It also clarifies space_id's role as an override, which supplements the schema description.

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 the tool performs a partial update of a keyword, with specific examples (matchType, status). It distinguishes itself from create/delete/list siblings by specifying 'partial update' and returning the full updated/created object.

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 explains the scoping behavior (active Space, override with space_id) and instructs to use set_active_space to switch. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over create_keyword or delete_keyword, though 'partial update' implies modifying existing keywords.

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