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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnly=false), but the description adds real substance: passed properties are overwritten, unmentioned fields are left untouched, and the previous value is gone with no history and no undo. That spells out precisely what the destructive flag means in practice, which the annotation alone does not.

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 purpose, then behavior, alternative, and exclusion in tight sentences. The trailing '| EN: object, record, entry, property, link, search' keyword block is search-oriented filler that adds no invocation value, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is updated, what is preserved, the alternative for single edits, and the irreversibility of the change. Nothing material 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 each of the six fields (name, status, pin_url, scope_id, external_id, object_udid) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no per-parameter syntax or format detail beyond the partial-update semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a precise verb+resource+scope: it changes multiple fields of an existing object in a single call. It explicitly distinguishes itself from onto_object_set_property (single-field alternative) and clarifies that deletion is out of scope, so an agent can separate it from onto_object_delete and onto_object_set_property without opening schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('fuer mehrere Aenderungen gleichzeitig') and names the alternative for the single-field case ('fuer ein einzelnes Feld ist onto_object_set_property schlanker'). It also states an exclusion (deletion is not part of this tool), which is exactly the routing guidance needed among the many onto_object_* siblings.

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