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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds no contradictory behavior. It contributes the useful constraint that name/descriptor changes only work for manual cells, but it does not disclose side effects, validation behavior, or anything beyond the basic scope of the update.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the action and scope with no filler or repetition of schema details. It earns its place and leaves no unnecessary words.

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?

With seven parameters and no output schema, the short description plus fully covered schema is adequate for constructing a basic call. However, it omits context such as which parameters apply to automated versus manual cells and what a successful update returns, so completeness is only minimal.

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 100%, so every parameter already has semantic documentation. The description only echoes 'limit' and 'manual cells' without adding meaning beyond what the schema's per-field descriptions provide.

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 identifies the specific action (changing a quota's limit or name/descriptor) and the affected resource (quota), with an important manual-cell restriction. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as create_quota or split_quota_limits, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus creating a new quota, splitting limits, or freezing auto quotas, and it names no alternatives. The only usage signal is the manual-cell restriction for name/descriptor changes, which is too thin to count as meaningful when-to-use guidance.

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