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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description supplies the substance behind that: partial-update semantics (only supplied fields change), the destructive clearing behavior of an empty string, the guardrail that a ready batch rejects rationale/summary edits, and the immutability of batch numbers. This is exactly the behavioral detail annotations cannot express.

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?

The editable fields and partial-update rule are front-loaded in the first clause, and the field definitions follow. It is dense but slightly overloaded by the trailing sentence about status transitions and immutable batch numbers, which is useful routing context but tangential to editing fields.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only readOnly/destructive annotations, the description covers field semantics, clearing behavior, guardrails, and routing to status tools. It omits any mention of the return value or permission requirements, which are minor gaps given the strong coverage elsewhere.

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 3 is the floor, but the description goes beyond the terse schema descriptions: it translates the name pattern into '1 to 3 lowercase words joined by single hyphens', restates the empty-string clearing rule for rationale and summary, and defines what each free-text field should contain (one or two plain sentences vs. two or three factual sentences).

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 (Edit) and resource (a batch) plus the exact editable fields (name, rationale, change summary), which cleanly separates it from update_delivery, update_idea, update_work, and the status-transition siblings. An agent can identify the tool without opening the 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?

Gives concrete when-to-use conditions (only supplied fields change; empty string clears rationale/summary) and a real exclusion ('A ready batch refuses rationale and summary edits'). It also names begin_work, finish_work, and revert_batch as the tools that move status, implicitly routing status changes away from this tool, but it never explicitly says 'use X for status changes'.

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