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

The description provides meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it reads the stored tutorial first, rewrites the whole record, preserves unspecified fields, and treats submitting unchanged values as a no-op. This aligns with idempotentHint=true and explains the destructiveHint=true 'rewrite' behavior without contradicting any annotation.

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 sentences with no fluff: the first states the operation, the second explains the read-before-write behavior, the third clarifies idempotency. Every sentence earns its place and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Given a simple 3-parameter schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral contract completely. There is no need to explain return values because an output schema exists, and the partial-update semantics are fully disclosed.

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?

The schema already covers all three parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context that unspecified fields retain current values, directly informing how optional name and defaultVoice parameters behave.

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 explicitly states the tool renames a tutorial or changes its default voice, naming a specific resource (Tutorializer tutorial) and the two supported update operations. This clearly distinguishes update_tutorial from sibling tools like update_project, update_speech, and update_video.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use this tool: updating an existing tutorial's name or default voice, with partial-update semantics via read-before-write. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the resource-specific wording makes the usage context sufficiently clear.

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