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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses partial-update behavior, that changing place/date relocates the step on the route, that trip start/end dates are untouched, the default per-call confirmation and its toggle, the social/external side effect requiring user confirmation, and the auth requirement (Cotlet API key). This is rich disclosure the annotations do not carry.

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 purpose, then layered with scope, side effects, confirmation behavior, and auth. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the confirmation/auth sentences sit at the end rather than the front.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and only two fully-documented parameters, the description covers the important behavioral facts (partial update, route movement, confirmation, auth). Return values need not be explained, but it says nothing about error/conflict behavior, 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by enumerating the mutable fields and explaining the downstream effect of the 'place' and 'date' values (they move the step on the route). That is useful semantic context beyond the schema's terse field list.

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 and resource ('Change the title, story, place or date of a step') and scopes exactly which fields are mutable. An agent can distinguish this from polarsteps_add_step or polarsteps_get_step without opening either schema.

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 operational context: partial-update semantics ('changes the fields you send and leaves the rest as it is'), confirmation defaults and how to disable them, and a pre-call requirement to confirm with the user because it 'reaches other people'. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g., add_step for creation), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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