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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: PATCH-style semantics ('Bara angivna fält ändras'), the required OAuth scope (manage_documents), and the explicit limitation that visibility/sharing fields are out of reach for this tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the partial-update rule, followed by the non-editable fields and scope. The trailing 'Argument:' list is somewhat redundant formatting, but with 0% schema coverage it earns its place by restating required vs optional fields.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose, partial-update semantics, scope, and an important non-capability. Minor omissions remain (behavior on unknown doc_id, whether an empty companies list clears links), but nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it names all four parameters while adding meaning the schema lacks: doc_id is required, name/category/companies are optional, and companies takes a list of organisation numbers. It does not constrain the category value space or name length, so it compensates well but not completely.

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+resource (edit a document's metadata) and immediately scopes it to name, category and linked companies, which separates it from delete_document, list_documents and upload_underlag. It also pre-empts a likely mistake by stating that visibility/LLM-sharing are NOT editable here, which no sibling could clarify.

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?

Gives explicit context: use this for metadata edits, and 'Synlighet och LLM-delning ... sätts bara i Kvickd-appen, inte via MCP' tells the agent when this tool cannot be used. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g. delete_document) for adjacent operations, so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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