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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true; the description adds the far more useful behavioral facts: partial-update semantics, empty-string-clears behavior, the ready-state rejection rule, and the immutability of batch numbers. These are exactly the mutation behaviors an agent needs and none are derivable from 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?

Front-loaded with the core mutation contract, which is good, but the tail drifts into tangential material (status flow via other tools, immutable batch numbers) that dilutes the edit-focused message. The prose is dense but several clauses don't serve this tool's invocation.

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-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the destructive/partial-update profile, per-field rules, and the key state precondition. It doesn't state the return value, but without an output schema the caller may want to know what a successful update yields; that is the only notable gap.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic constraints: the exact name grammar (1-3 lowercase hyphen-joined words with an example), the content rules for rationale and summary, and the empty-string-clears contract. This meaningfully exceeds what the schema's one-line descriptions convey.

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 (Edit) and enumerates the exact mutable fields (name, rationale, change summary), which immediately distinguishes it from siblings like update_work or update_delivery. The agent knows exactly what this tool mutates 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use signal (only supplied fields change) plus a critical exclusion: a ready batch refuses rationale and summary edits. It also points the agent toward begin_work, finish_work, and revert_batch for status changes, routing correctly away from this tool.

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