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

Annotations already signal mutability through readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral boundary: status transitions are not manually permitted and depend on external evidence judge verdicts. This goes beyond the structured metadata and helps an agent reason about side effects and constraints. There is no contradiction with 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?

Two focused sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the status limitation is stated immediately afterward in a separate sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 simple three-parameter update with complete schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the key operational constraint. It could have noted that text and signpost are optional and at least one may be required for a meaningful update, but the schema and current wording provide adequate context.

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 input schema already fully documents all three parameters with descriptions for text, signpost, and assumptionId. The description does not add deeper semantics such as formatting requirements, field interactions, or minimum-field constraints, so baseline schema coverage is sufficient here.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Update text or signpost of an assumption.' This cleanly separates the tool from generic siblings like goal-update and goal-update-criterion by naming the exact editable fields and the target object. The added status limitation further clarifies what the tool is not for.

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 clearly states a when-not-to-use condition: status cannot be changed manually, and transitions come only via evidence judge verdicts. It does not name a specific alternative sibling tool, but the exclusion is explicit and actionable enough for an agent to avoid misusing this tool for status changes.

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