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

Annotations declare destructive=true and idempotent=true; the description adds two pieces of context those hints cannot express — that only the submitted fields are changed (partial update, not a full replace) and that the operation is gated on the formation still being an unsigned draft. It does not explain what a destructive update overwrites or what the response contains, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 operation and followed by the hard constraint. Nothing is wasted and no sentence merely restates the tool name.

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 22-parameter nested mutation with no output schema, the description covers the lifecycle gate but leaves the return value and failure modes other than the signature lock unstated. Given the schema documents every field, the remaining gap is moderate rather than critical.

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% across all 22 parameters, with conditional rules (basic-only ein/agreement, corporations-only shares/par_value, LLC-only management) already documented in the schema. The description adds no field-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ("changes the fields you send on a draft formation") plus the scope that matters most: it only applies to drafts and stops working after owner signature. It does not name siblings such as create_formation or get_formation, but the operation is unambiguous against them.

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?

"on a draft formation" and "Fails once the owner has signed" give a clear precondition and an explicit exclusion, which is real when-to-use guidance. No alternative tool is named for the post-signature case, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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