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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/readOnly annotations: it discloses the optimistic-concurrency contract (revision required, stale revisions rejected without changes), partial-update semantics (omitted fields unchanged), replacement semantics (notes replaces the whole shared text), clearing semantics (empty strings clear fields), and the return payload plus new revision.

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?

Six dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and prerequisites before edge-case semantics; every clause carries an operational fact (auth, concurrency, clearing, rename limits) with no restatement of the title or 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 destructive nested-object mutation with an output schema, it covers everything an agent needs before calling: permissions, the required revision and its failure mode, partial vs full replacement behaviour, and what comes back. Only the state/country fields lack semantics, a minor omission.

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 reported as 0% at the top level, so the description must carry meaning, and it does: it explains where revision comes from and why it matters, that notes is a full replacement, that empty strings clear fields, and the special applicant_name behaviour. The state and country fields are never given meaning in either place, which is the remaining gap.

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 ('Updates selected profile fields or shared assistant notes in the connected organisation') and explicitly bounds scope with 'Does not create or publish a Strategy', separating it from create_strategy and get_company_context without needing the schema.

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?

States the prerequisites ('Requires moderator rights and write consent'), names the sibling that supplies the required input ('The revision from get_company_context'), and gives one explicit exclusion (no Strategy creation/publication). It stops short of contrasting with other mutators like update_asset or update_innovation, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not map.

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