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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces that edits are applied 'directly' but never says existing response bodies/schemas are overwritten irreversibly or whether a preview/dry-run exists. Useful workflow context, no contradiction.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action, the resource, and the fields modified, then closes with the motivating workflow. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the what and the why, and the annotations carry the safety semantics. It is only missing guidance on endpoint targeting (endpoint_id vs route+method) and post-update verification, which is a minor gap.

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 every parameter is already documented, including the route/method fallback for endpoint_id. The description names the three payload fields but adds no syntax, format, or targeting nuance beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (update) and resource (mock endpoint) plus the exact fields it can change, so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling update_endpoint, leaving the agent to guess why 'heal' exists separately.

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?

It supplies clear triggering context: use this to fix integration failures surfaced by inspect_failed_requests, which ties it to a concrete workflow. It stops short of stating when not to use it or how it relates to update_endpoint.

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