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

Annotations already mark the call idempotent and non-read-only; the description adds useful behavioral nuance by stating that absent answers are treated as omitted for the prompt batch and that optional/conditionally required omissions do not block progress. This goes beyond the schema and annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case and followed by precise instructions. Every sentence contributes actionable information with no filler.

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 captures the central partial-update semantics and state-version requirement, but with five parameters including an object and 0% schema coverage, omitting guidance on explicitly_unknown_field_ids and idempotency_key leaves an agent with incomplete calling knowledge. The presence of an output schema covers return values but not parameter-level 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only meaningfully explains expected_state_version and answers behavior. Required fields like request_id and idempotency_key, plus explicitly_unknown_field_ids, receive no semantic guidance beyond their names.

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 'Use this for the user's partial response to the current intake or matching batch,' giving a concrete verb and resource while aligning with the title's update operation. It conveys that this tool records incremental answers to a service request, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related lifecycle tools like select_service_option.

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?

'Use this for...' provides a clear context, and the instructions about passing only user-supplied values, including selected_time_key when chosen, and always passing the latest expected_state_version, give practical when/how guidance. It does not list exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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