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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true but don't explain the consequence; the description supplies the critical missing context that the edit is publicly visible immediately and sends no notifications, plus the PATCH-style semantics ('only the fields you pass change'). It stops short of describing the response or what happens on a failed/partial update.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, visibility, notification behavior, and partial-update semantics. The most consequential fact (public immediately) is front-loaded.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety-relevant behavior well. Minor gaps remain around error handling and whether an empty body is a no-op, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 only 40% (title, message, and collapsed are undocumented in the schema), so the description should compensate more than it does. It names the three optional fields but adds no constraints, defaults, or format guidance, and says nothing about the required page_id/general_notice_id pairing.

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 plus resource ('Change the ... general notice') and enumerates the mutable fields (title, message, collapsed). This distinguishes it implicitly from post_general_notice and remove_general_notice, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The description implies an edit-existing-object operation but never says when to use this versus instatus_post_general_notice or instatus_remove_general_notice, nor what prerequisites exist (e.g. the notice must already exist on the page). Usage is inferable but not guided.

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