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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds a non-annotation requirement: reading the 'write-tools' skill before first use. This is useful behavioral context beyond annotations, though it does not detail what destructive effects occur (e.g., whether archived status is reversible).

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 two terse sentences: the first captures the purpose and field scope, the second gives a critical prerequisite. There is no redundant filler, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 7 parameters and a detailed schema, the description covers the purpose, the fields, and a required skill check. There is no output schema, so return-value behavior is not explained, but that is a minor gap given the schema's richness and the annotations covering side effects.

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 86%, so the schema's per-parameter descriptions carry most of the meaning. The tool description merely lists the parameter names (priority, lifecycle state, etc.) without adding new semantics, format details, or cross-parameter constraints beyond what the schema already documents.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a single topic'), and enumerates the specific fields (priority, lifecycle state, archived status, issue type, keywords). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting 'single', which contrasts with bulk_update_topics, and the field list separates it from merge_topics.

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?

The description gives clear context: it updates a single topic and lists which attributes can be changed. It also provides a prerequisite ('Before your first call, read the skill: modem_skills(...)'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like bulk_update_topics for multiple topics or update_people for other resources, 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.