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

Beyond annotations, it discloses read-then-merge behavior, exact clearing semantics for empty strings and ownerId 0, required role, plan-limit failure behavior, valid kind/status values, probability/impact rules, and date format. 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 description is dense but front-loaded: it starts with the core action and merge behavior, then moves through clearing rules, permissions, enums, scoring, date format, and plan limits. Every sentence carries operational value.

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 an 11-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical operational details an agent needs: partial-update semantics, clearing behavior, role authorization, plan restrictions, enum values, date format, and cross-field probability/impact rules. Return-value details are the only minor omission, but they are not essential for invoking the tool 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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, but the description adds material meaning: which fields can be cleared and how, how owner clearing works, valid kind/status values, probability/impact constraints, risk scoring, and dueDate format. It meaningfully improves correct parameter use beyond the schema alone.

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?

The description opens with a clear verb and resource: "Change a RAID line." It immediately clarifies partial-update merge behavior, which distinguishes it from create/delete operations. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it falls slightly short of the highest clarity level.

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?

The description makes clear this is for changing an existing RAID line and that only supplied fields are changed. It also gives prerequisites such as Administrator/ProjectManager role and Pro plan only. It does not explicitly state when to use this versus create_raid_item or delete_raid_item.

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