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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, but the description goes far beyond by disclosing the necessary multi-step behavior: reading by ID, pausing, bounded reads until is_updating is false, running preflight, restoring prior status only under conditions, and the safety failure handling. It also states the effect (workspace-change), permission required, and retry guidance—all extra context beyond the annotations.

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 lengthy but each sentence carries essential operational information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then builds a clear cause-and-effect workflow. No sentences are wasted; even the retry and permission notes are valuable. It is structured to be read sequentially as a safe-update procedure, which suits the complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (nested object schemas, multiple potential states, and an output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the full lifecycle of an update, including failures, restoration, and never activating a non-running sequence. It also provides permission and API reference. Since an output schema exists, return values are handled separately, so no major gaps remain.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (sequence_id and body), giving 100% coverage. The description does not add further meaning to these parameters; it focuses on the procedural workflow rather than the argument semantics. The body parameter's complex structure is fully documented by the nested schema definitions, so the description rightfully leaves parameter details to the schema.

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 'Updates an existing paused Sequence,' which clearly states the verb and resource. It proceeds to differentiate the tool by describing its behavior for running sequences, making clear this is a full update tool rather than a status-only toggle. This distinguishes it from siblings like sequences_update_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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it targets existing sequences and provides a detailed protocol for handling running sequences (pause, update, preflight, restore). It tells the agent when not to activate a sequence (never activate a non-running one) and recommends retry only after reading current state. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like sequences_update_status or sequences_preflight, though the workflow implies them.

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