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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful operational detail beyond that: enabled false pauses and true resumes; linking requires site_id, site_slug, and component_id together; incident_mode 'review' stores a draft for human approval; and request headers, body, and HTTP auth stay in the console. It does not cover permission requirements or rate limits, but it is a solid supplement.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, followed by compact guidance on partial updates, enabled semantics, linking, and console-only fields. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition, though it could be slightly tighter given the remaining parameter gaps.

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 29-parameter mutation with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete: it misses semantics for the majority of parameters, provides no error or return behavior, and does not clarify many operational constraints. It covers key flows (pausing, linking, incident_mode) but leaves too much undocumented for an agent to call the tool confidently across all parameters.

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?

With 29 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden but only explains roughly seven parameters (enabled, site_id, site_slug, component_id, incident_mode, incident_auto_resolve, display_metrics). It also adds enum-like meaning for incident_mode, which the schema lacks, but many fields such as name, target, port, regions, dns_*, http_*, and endpoint_id are left undocumented.

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?

The description opens with 'Update a check,' which states a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it naturally from siblings like create_check, delete_check, and get_check. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, but the purpose is 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?

'Pass only the fields to change' gives useful partial-update guidance, and the description explains the effect of enabled and the linking requirements. However, it never states when to use update_check versus alternatives such as create_check or get_check, nor does it list any exclusions or preconditions.

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