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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the schema-discovery prerequisite and says nothing about the consequences of destructive updates or failure modes for invalid field codes. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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, purpose front-loaded, followed by the one non-obvious prerequisite. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description needn't restate returns or risk. The main gap is the lack of guidance on update-vs-attach for entity linking, but nothing essential to invoking the tool is missing.

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%, and the schema itself is unusually informative (omit vs [] semantics, field-code format, whoami reference). The description defers entirely to the schema for the custom_fields prerequisite, adding no parameter meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the explanatory work.

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 and resource ('Update an existing task'), distinguishing it from create-task-tool and delete-task-tool by name. It does not differentiate from adjacent tools like attach-task-to-entities-tool or update-people-tool, but the resource noun makes the scope unambiguous.

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 second sentence gives a concrete prerequisite ('Use the crm-schema resource to discover available custom fields'), which is helpful. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over attach-task-to-entities-tool for linking, nor on partial-update vs replacement semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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