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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes beyond them by explaining consequences: locked fiscal years keep partners as they were, existing partners' slot values must be preserved so accounts don't shift, and shares drive the distribution of the year's result. It does not cover error behavior (e.g. percentages not summing to 100) or permission requirements, keeping it at 4.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, starting with the replacement action before listing fields and constraints. Some sentences are run-on and mix field documentation with business rules, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema and a nested partner structure, the description supplies the missing nested-field contract, constraints, and account/result-allocation effects. Only the response shape and failure modes for invalid input are left unstated, which is minor here.

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 only 50% — the entire `partners` array is an untyped object with no item schema — so the description must carry the load, and it does: it enumerates name, share_pct (percent, must total 100), kind (person/company), orgnr (legal entities only, personnummer never accepted), limited (kommanditbolag only), insats_ore, and slot (1-4) with its preservation rule.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource in context: 'Ersätter handelsbolagets eller kommanditbolagets delägare' (replaces the partners of a partnership/limited partnership). It also scopes the entity type, which distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like update_company or read_statutory_status.

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 concrete usage context: 'Bekräfta med användaren först' (confirm with the user first), 'Scope statutory', the 2-4 partner limit, and that locked fiscal years retain their partners. It never names an alternative sibling tool, so it falls short of a 5, but the when-to-use and safety guidance is explicit.

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