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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false; on top of that the description discloses that at least one field must change, that the tag is immutable, and that no delete path exists. That is useful scope information beyond the annotation flags, though it says nothing about permissions or response behavior.

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 compact clauses, front-loading the mutable fields and the at-least-one requirement before the negative constraints. No wasted wording.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutable surface and key limits. It could state whether changes are reversible or require specific permissions, but the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly are present.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds a constraint absent from the schema: at least one of name/type/scoreOrder must be supplied, and it clarifies the tag (leaderboardId) is immutable. This meaningfully extends the parameter understanding.

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 (change/update), the resource (leaderboard), and exactly which fields are mutable (name, type, scoreOrder). It is immediately distinguishable from create_leaderboard and list_leaderboards by naming what is editable rather than created or listed.

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?

Adds decision-relevant constraints: at least one mutable field is required, the tag cannot change, and deletion is unavailable. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool for deletion, but the exclusions clearly scope 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.