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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description usefully adds that the bed is keyed by its current name, but it never says what 'destructive' means here — whether omitted fields are preserved (partial update) or cleared — which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three tight sentences with the action and the lookup key front-loaded. The third sentence largely restates the field list from the first, which is mild redundancy rather than noise.

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 7-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers identification and target fields acceptably. It omits the partial-update semantics and the garden-default interaction, which are the remaining gaps an agent would want before calling it.

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 57%, so several parameters carry no prose. The description confirms the addressable fields (name, type, dimensions) and reinforces that `bed` is the current name, but adds no meaning for widthCm/heightCm/lengthCm beyond their self-describing names. Baseline 3 fits.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Change an existing bed') with the updatable fields named (name, type, dimensions), which cleanly separates it from create_bed, delete_bed, and list_beds. It does not explicitly name a sibling to disambiguate against, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Use when the user wants to rename a bed, change its type, or set/adjust its dimensions' gives concrete trigger conditions for invoking the tool. No exclusions or named alternatives are provided, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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