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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: only passed fields are written, arrays replace entire lists, no re-crawl occurs, and the profileStaleAt flag is cleared. This gives the agent a clear model of side effects and partial-update semantics.

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 front-load the core purpose, followed by trigger condition and side-effect notes. Every sentence adds distinct value with no repetition or fluff.

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?

The description is complete for a mutating update tool: it states when to use it, what fields it affects, how partial updates and arrays behave, and side effects on re-crawl and the stale flag. The destructive nature is already covered by annotations, and no output schema exists, so return details need not be explained.

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 low (14%), and the description compensates by listing the semantic fields (description, primary offer, benefits, key differentiators, use cases) and clarifying array replacement behavior. The context parameter is not explained in the description, but the schema does describe it, mitigating the gap.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Correct') and resource ('the inferred profile of the project asset'), enumerating the fields involved. It also distinguishes itself from related flows by explicitly noting 'No re-crawl happens,' which contrasts with resync_asset_profile.

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?

Description gives an explicit trigger: use when get_project_asset shows claims contradicting what the operator sells (profileStaleAt set or operator says so). It does not explicitly name resync_asset_profile as the alternative for a full re-crawl, but the 'No re-crawl happens' note implies that distinction.

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