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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new context: that server-owned fields cannot be written (partial-update semantics) and that approval requirements are org-configurable while business workflow approvals always apply. It still doesn't say what a destructive edit can overwrite or what the response looks like.

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 tight sentences with the operation stated first and the exclusion/approval caveats following. No filler, though the approval sentence is somewhat tangential to actually invoking the tool.

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 a nested data object, 0% schema description coverage, and a destructive write, the description should explain the writable fields and partial-update behavior. It offers only a scattered hint about server-owned fields; an output schema exists so return values needn't be covered, but input semantics are under-specified.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it largely doesn't. It never mentions 'id', 'data', or the writable fields (name, sortOrder, description), nor that data is a nested object with additionalProperties=false. Only the vague 'server-owned fields are excluded' gives any hint about what may be passed.

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 ('Configure/edit') and resource ('diligence_tab'), so an agent knows it mutates an existing tab rather than creating one. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from update_diligence_field or create_diligence_tab, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'edit' – the agent can infer this applies to an existing tab, but nothing says when to choose it over update_diligence_field, create_diligence_tab, or delete_diligence_tab. The 'server-owned fields are excluded' clause hints at scope but is not framed as guidance.

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