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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried structurally, but the description adds nothing beyond that baseline: it never says the operation overwrites existing values, that it is non-idempotent, or which status transitions are meaningful. For a destructive mutation tool, this is a thin description.

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?

One efficient sentence with no padding, but it is under-specified rather than tight – the brevity comes at the cost of missing update semantics. Adequate but not earning its place against what an agent needs.

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?

An 8-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and near-zero schema documentation needs far more: whether it's a patch or full replace, what the response contains, and what a status change implies. The single sentence leaves the agent guessing on the key behavioral question.

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 only 13% (just estimate_id), so the description should compensate, but it merely re-lists fields already visible in the schema (title, status, dates, description, inclusions, exclusions) without clarifying that unspecified fields are left unchanged, how the status enum behaves, or anything about date formats. It adds negligible meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Changes an estimate's status, title, dates...') and enumerates the mutable fields, which distinguishes it from create_estimate, delete_estimate, and get_estimate. The verb 'changes' is vague about whether it is a full replace or a partial update, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as update_change_order, send_estimate, or add_estimate_items, and no prerequisites (permissions, whether the estimate must be in a certain status, or that estimate_id comes from list_estimates). The schema hints at list_estimates but the description provides no routing logic.

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