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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond that: partial-update behavior ('the rest keep their current values'), the dual identification mechanism, and the immutability constraint on generated CRUD routes. It does not explain the destructive aspects (e.g. that replacing a variants list drops the old list), but that behavior surfaces in the schema.

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: action and editability, update semantics, then identification. Nothing is repeated and the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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 nested mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly: what can change, how to identify the target, and partial-update behavior. The deeply nested `response_variants`/conditions model is left to the schema, which is reasonable but leaves the tool description thin relative to the overall complexity.

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% and already documents `changes`, `endpoint_id`, `method`, `route`, and `workspace` in detail. The description largely restates the schema's semantics (partial update, endpoint_id vs method+route identification) rather than adding syntax or value domains, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Change any setting of an existing endpoint') and immediately bounds the scope with what can be edited (method, route, folder). The closing constraint about resource-generated CRUD routes distinguishes it from creation/import paths and from editing resource-owned routes.

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 clear context: use it to change settings on an existing endpoint, pass only the fields to change, and identify the endpoint either by endpoint_id or by method+route. It also states a when-not ('A resource's generated CRUD routes can't be edited') but does not name sibling alternatives such as create_endpoint or delete_endpoint.

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