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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description needs to add what is actually at risk — it doesn't. It never says whether omitted fields are wiped or preserved, whether setting weather_delay/schedule_delay has side effects (they 'mark' a delay), or that changes are not reversible. Restating the field list duplicates the schema rather than adding behavioral context.

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 with no filler, but it front-loads the field enumeration before establishing the resource and omits a short 'partial update' qualifier that would have cost only a few words.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation across 11 parameters with no output schema, and the description covers none of the consequential behavior: partial-update semantics, side effects of the delay fields, or what the caller gets back. As written an agent could reasonably call it with only daily_log_id plus one field and be unsure whether the rest is cleared.

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. The description only paraphrases a subset of parameters ('notes, times, people, deliveries, weather notes or delays') and omits visitors, jobsite_notes, schedule_delay and the materials_delivered array, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Change') and resource (daily log) plus the categories of fields it touches, which separates it from create_daily_log, get_daily_log and list_daily_logs. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the agent must infer the split from the names alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus create_daily_log or update_project, and no statement of the key operational rule for an 11-param tool with one required field: that only supplied fields change and everything else is preserved. The 'daily_log_id from list_daily_logs' hint lives in the schema, not the description.

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