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

The description does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or the destructive nature of the operation (despite annotations indicating destructiveHint=true). It also does not explain whether the update is partial (patch) or full replacement, or what happens to existing data.

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?

The description is very short, but it contains redundancy: 'Update paragraph.' and 'Update one video paragraph by paragraph id.' convey the same information. The 'Guidance:' prefix is unconventional and the structure lacks informative substance.

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?

The description omits critical context such as how the update is performed, what fields are patchable (though schema hints at it), and what the response will look like (no output schema). It is insufficient for an agent to understand the full behavior of this mutating operation.

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?

The schema descriptions cover all parameters with reasonable clarity (e.g., id, paragraph_id, patch fields). However, the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the score remains at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

The description states the core action ('Update one video paragraph') and identifies the resource, but it is vague about what updating entails and does not distinguish it from other paragraph update tools. The first sentence 'Update paragraph.' is overly generic and adds little clarity.

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 tool versus the many sibling update tools (e.g., cms_update_article_paragraph). The 'Guidance:' line merely restates the action rather than providing selection criteria or alternative suggestions.

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