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

Annotations already declare this is a write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, and non-idempotent. The description adds the confirmation-before-writing requirement, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations, but says nothing about what the write affects, reversibility, or how the confirm/idempotencyKey parameters alter 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by the safety instruction, with no filler. The phrase 'live ... metadata settings' is slightly vague, but the structure wastes nothing.

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?

With rich annotations and a fully documented 8-parameter schema, the description needs only to frame intent and safety, which it does. It leaves the dry-run/confirm and idempotency semantics entirely to the schema, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 schema already documents all eight parameters including the status enum and the confirm dry-run flag. The description only loosely gestures at the payload ('queenright and breeder metadata'), so it adds marginal value over structured data, which is the baseline case for a 3.

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 (queenright and breeder metadata settings of a hive), and the term 'queenright' ties it clearly to the queen-status enum in the schema. It does not name a sibling to distinguish from, but nothing in the sibling list overlaps this domain, so ambiguity is low.

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?

'ALWAYS ask for confirmation before writing' gives an operational rule for invoking it, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives (e.g., log_hive_inspection, which also touches hive state), so the when/when-not dimension is only implied.

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