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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutation nature is covered. The description adds useful constraints: the tag cannot change and deleting is unavailable. It does not describe side effects or permissions, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar. Overall, it adds some context beyond 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 sentences, no fluff, key constraint front-loaded.

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?

Covers the essential scope and constraints for an update tool with no output schema. It doesn't mention success/error behavior, but that is not necessary given the annotations. The immutability and deletion limitations are stated.

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 schema already documents each parameter with descriptions and 100% coverage. The description adds the critical constraint that at least one of name, type, or scoreOrder is required, and that leaderboardId (the tag) is immutable. This is valuable because the schema's required array only lists applicationId and leaderboardId.

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 the specific verb 'Change' and resource 'leaderboard', enumerates the mutable fields (name, type, scoreOrder) and explicitly lists what is off-limits (tag, delete). This clearly differentiates it from create_leaderboard and list_leaderboards.

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 implies the tool is for updating an existing leaderboard and clarifies that at least one field is required. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (create_leaderboard, list_leaderboards) makes the use case clear. Lacks explicit 'use this when' guidance, so not a 5.

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