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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does earn credit for disclosing one real side effect — that changing the url resets ownership verification — but it never states that unlisted fields are left untouched (true patch semantics), what permissions are required, whether the slug identifies 'my' build, or what happens on failure.

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, zero filler, with the field enumeration first and the destructive side effect trailing it. Nothing needs trimming.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a mismatch between the described fields and the schema properties, the definition is under-specified. It omits the required slug, the enum values for status and revenue_model, and any return or error behavior.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. Worse, it directs the agent to change 'story' while the schema's actual property is 'description' — a naming mismatch that can cause a failed or wrong-field invocation — and it never mentions the required 'slug' identifier.

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') plus the exact set of editable fields, so an agent knows this is a partial-edit tool rather than a create or read. It doesn't explicitly contrast with create_build or get_build, but the field list makes the boundary with siblings obvious.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus create_build or verify_ownership, nor any prerequisite such as owning the build or needing authentication. The only usage-adjacent signal is the URL-reset warning, which is a side effect, not guidance on tool selection.

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