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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that existing relationships are retained and incorrect ones cannot be removed, what stays unchanged (text, PDFs, images, legal status, classification), the return shape (counts, warnings, no member list), and the meaning of a null links result. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every sentence carries substantive information, but the description is long and slightly repetitive (multiple sentences about which fields are unchanged and about incomplete updates). It is informative rather than padded, though it could be tightened.

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 a mutation tool with an output schema, annotations, and a single parameter, the description covers behavior, limitations, prerequisites, and result semantics thoroughly. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret it correctly appears to be 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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents documentId and its accepted forms. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 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 (updates), resource (family grouping), and scope (one saved own patent, drawing on public info plus related saved own patents). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like import_patent and search_public_patents.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering situations (apparent missing relationship, unfinished family update, checking newer public information) and the when-not ('routine refresh after import is unnecessary', 'repeating import_patent only retrieves its saved outcome'). It also flags prerequisites (related publications must be imported first) and exclusions (competitor records unsupported).

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