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

Beyond the destructive/non-idempotent annotations, it discloses authorization needs (moderator rights, write consent), optimistic concurrency (stale revisions rejected without changes), merge semantics (omitted fields unchanged, empty strings clear), full-replacement behavior for notes, and the specific side effect of applicant_name on workspace naming.

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 waste-free; each sentence carries a distinct behavioral fact (permissions, concurrency, merge semantics, edge-case fields, return value, exclusion). The most important constraints are front-loaded.

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-update tool with an output schema, the description covers permissions, concurrency, field-level merge/clear behavior, the returned value (saved context and new revision), and a boundary exclusion. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is low, so the description carries weight: it explains the revision requirement and the merge/clear semantics that apply to updates. It details notes and applicant_name precisely, though state and country receive no added meaning beyond the schema's maxLength constraints.

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 with scope: updates selected profile fields or shared assistant notes in the connected organisation. It explicitly excludes create/publish Strategy, routing the agent away from the create_strategy sibling, and its relationship to get_company_context (source of the revision) is clear.

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?

Says it requires moderator rights and write consent, that the revision from get_company_context is required, and adds a clear when-not ('Does not create or publish a Strategy'). It stops short of naming the read alternative explicitly for the read step, but the prerequisites and exclusion give strong selection guidance.

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