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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the pickup-booking lock on street edits and the required Happy Hamper login — real operational context not captured by readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false. It still doesn't say whether omitted fields are preserved, nor what error surfaces when the lock is violated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the primary action first, then the constraint and auth requirement. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

Handles auth and the conditional street restriction, and annotations already declare the safety profile. For an 8-parameter mutation tool with 13% schema coverage and no output schema, it leaves meaningful gaps: partial-update semantics, which parameters the pickup lock actually covers, and failure 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 description coverage is only 13%, so the description must carry the semantic load. It partially does by naming the mutable fields, but 'street' is ambiguous against five separate schema properties (line1, line2, city, state, postalCode), and required addressId plus null/omission semantics are undocumented in both places.

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) and resource (address), then enumerates the mutable parts — label, notes, and street — which clearly separates it from add_address and check_address. It stops short of naming sibling tools or covering the full address field set, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Provides a concrete when-not condition: street fields may only be changed until a pickup has been booked at that address. It also states an auth precondition. It does not point to alternatives (e.g. add_address for a new address, check_address to inspect state), which keeps it below a 5.

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