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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that -- unknown field names are silently skipped rather than erroring, and null clears a field. It stops short of saying whether updates are reversible or atomic across multiple fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the field-discovery rule, the clearing rule, identification, and the append alternative. Every sentence carries distinct operational information; 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?

For a 3-parameter nested mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers how to find the id, how to discover valid field names, what happens on invalid names, and how to clear or append. The only gap is what the call returns (updated object vs confirmation).

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics for the nested 'fields' object: keys must come from the type's field dictionary, 'name'/'description' are universal, null clears, and 'append' is the non-destructive alternative to rewriting 'description'. That is meaning the schema's one-line 'Field name -> new value' 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 specific verbs and resource: 'Rename or re-describe an object in the user's graph, or set any of its type-specific fields', with concrete examples (contact phone/email, company funding stage). It clearly distinguishes itself from get_graph_object (read the dictionary) and create_graph_object/delete siblings by being the field-mutation path.

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 preconditions and alternatives: read get_graph_object's 'editable_fields' first rather than guessing, use search_graph_objects to obtain the object_id, and prefer 'append' over rewriting 'description' when preserving existing text. No explicit when-not-to-use case (e.g. use create_graph_object for new objects), which keeps it just below a 5.

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