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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether this is a partial or full replace, whether omitted fields are cleared, what happens to existing agentTool/response configuration, or what errors to expect for a destructive 9-parameter mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is efficient. But for a destructive tool with nine parameters including nested configuration objects, this size is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a destructive mutation with nine parameters and a required-vs-optional split (endpointId/apiId required, seven optional), the description omits update semantics, failure modes, and parameter mapping. It is not adequate to call this tool correctly and safely.

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 0% across 9 parameters, and the description names none of them. Complex nested inputs like agentTool (toolName, inputSchema, outputSchema, errorSemantics) and response (mode/code/schema) are left entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (update) and resource (structured endpoint) with scope (in an API draft), so an agent knows the target. It does not, however, distinguish itself from endpoint_create, endpoint_delete, or the step_* siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. draft must exist, endpointId must be valid), and no mention of alternatives such as endpoint_create for new endpoints. The phrase 'in an API draft' implies a context but leaves the agent to infer when this tool applies.

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