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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral rules: credentials must be test-only and belong solely in demo_accesso, never in fatto, prossima_tappa or domanda, and the portal renders them as a table with a hidden password and copy button. It does not explain what happens on an invalid id or the effect of re-submitting the same update.

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?

Dense but well front-loaded: the core action and recorded fields come first, then the usage triggers, then the conditional demo-credential rules. Every sentence carries scenario or constraint information, though the paragraph is long enough that an agent must read it fully rather than skim.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main workflows, the external-commit flag, and the credential-handling policy. It leaves minor gaps on error behavior and idempotency, and output/confirmation format is unspecified, but all required fields are documented in the schema at full coverage.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the conditional relationship between demo_url and demo_accesso based on where the demo is hosted. It also clarifies that demo_accesso is the single permitted location for credentials, which is semantic guidance the schema alone does not convey.

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 and resource (aggiorna un cantiere di sviluppo) and enumerates exactly which fields it records (avanzamento, fatto, prossima tappa, cartella, ultimo commit, domanda). It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling pubblica_demo by noting that static demos go through that tool instead.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: use at the end of each tappa, when closing a piece of work in a manual session, or to report commits made outside the portal (esterno: true). It also branches on the user's hosting choice, specifying demo_url + demo_accesso for 'Sul mio server' versus demo_accesso alone for 'Solo sul mio PC', and names pubblica_demo as the alternative for static demos.

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