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

With only idempotentHint in annotations, the description carries real weight: it discloses partial-update semantics (only supplied fields mutate) and a non-obvious side effect, that linked dashboards are re-seeded with the new values. It does not say what happens on invalid section ids or whether non-owners are rejected, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero waste, with the mutation scope and the 'only provided fields change' guard front-loaded before the side-effect note.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what is editable, that updates are partial, and that dependent dashboards are affected. It omits error/permission behavior and return shape, but the schema compensates for field-level detail.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter in detail, including the empty-string-to-restore-name and all-zeroes-guid unfiling tricks. The description merely restates field names and the yyyy-MM-dd format already present in the schema, adding no semantics beyond it.

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 ('Owner corrections') plus resource ('one mortgage') and enumerates exactly which facts are editable (name, offer date, property value, income, location, section). An agent can distinguish this from create_mortgage_manual, get_mortgage, and list_mortgages without reading any 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?

"Owner corrections" frames the use case (fixing existing records, owner-scoped) and "Only provided fields change" clarifies partial-update intent versus a full replacement. It never names an explicit alternative or when-not condition, so it stops short of the top band.

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