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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: 'Fields you leave out stay as they are' discloses partial-update semantics, and the reversibility/auth notes ('one more call restores the old text, so it runs without asking first', 'Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app') go beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint. The safety rationale is genuinely useful for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb+resource, which is good, but the opening is redundant: 'Change the title, description or tags of one of your shots' and 'Changes the title, description or tags of one of your own shots' say nearly the same thing in consecutive sentences, wasting the second slot.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the important behaviors an agent needs: partial-update semantics, reversibility, no-confirmation rationale, and the API key requirement. For a two-parameter metadata update, this is close to complete, with only the sibling create/upload distinction missing.

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 the schema already documents shot_id and fields. The description restates which fields are editable (title, description, tags), matching the schema's 'fields' description without adding syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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/Update) and the exact resource (title, description, tags of one of your shots), so it is unmistakable what the tool does. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the nearest sibling (dribbble_upload_shot for creating shots), leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'Change' signals an edit operation, and 'one of your own shots' implies an ownership precondition. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance and no callout of upload_shot as the create path.

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