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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful trait beyond the annotations: partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass are modified'), telling the agent unpassed fields are preserved rather than cleared. It stops short of noting auth needs or side effects, but this is meaningful added 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?

Two short sentences, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the partial-update constraint following immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and low schema coverage, the description covers the essential partial-update behavior but omits parameter-level guidance and any hint about the result of the update. Annotations absorb the safety burden, keeping this minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 25%, so the description is expected to compensate, and it does not. 'The fields you pass' is a generic phrase that names no parameter, gives no format guidance for url/http_method/expected_status_codes, and leaves the nested response_validation object undescribed beyond a schema pointer.

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 an existing check's settings'), clearly distinguishing this from create_check/delete_check. However, it does not name or differentiate from the closest sibling toggle_check, so the boundary between changing settings and toggling enablement is left implicit.

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 by the verb 'change'; there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of prerequisites, and no contrast with alternatives like create_check or toggle_check. The reader can infer this is the settings-mutation path, but nothing routes them there.

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