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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is mostly covered. The description's 'no delete is exposed over MCP' adds scoping context but is in mild tension with destructiveHint=true (field overwrites are still destructive), and it says nothing about whether omitted fields are preserved or what a failed update does.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the delete-scope caveat following. Every sentence carries information.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with 20% schema coverage, no output schema, and no return-value documentation, the description is too thin: it omits partial-vs-replace semantics, which fields are updatable, and any permission or ownership constraints beyond the word 'owned'.

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 only 20% (only audience_id is documented), so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'fields' generically and never enumerates the editable fields (name, channels, description, pain_points) or their limits, leaving four of five parameters effectively undocumented.

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 ('Update fields on one owned audience definition') and adds an ownership/scope qualifier. It clearly reads as the mutation counterpart to get_marketing_audience/list_marketing_audiences, though it never explicitly names the sibling tools it complements.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. 'call list_marketing_audiences first to get the UUID'), and no stated conditions under which this should be preferred over create_marketing_audience or update_marketing_campaign. Only the schema's audience_id note hints at the workflow.

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