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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, non-open-world semantics, and the description goes beyond them by stating the partial-update rule ('only the fields you pass are changed') and the atomic failure modes (TENANT_NOT_FOUND / TENANT_AMBIGUOUS 'without changing anything'). That is real behavioral value, though it stops short of describing the response shape or how rename interacts with cached references.

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 operation, addressing key, and update semantics before enumerating arguments; nearly every sentence carries information. The trailing get_integration_guide cross-sell is tangential to invoking this tool and adds slight bloat.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: addressing, partial-update semantics, and failure behavior. The omission of the app parameter and any note on return/verification leaves a small gap, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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; the description adds the semantic mapping of name to 'the tenant to update' and newName to a rename, and gives format hints for locale and logo. The app parameter is never mentioned in the description, so it is not fully compensating beyond the schema.

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 (Update) and resource (tenant), plus the addressing key (current NAME) and the partial-update contract. It also names the create/delete siblings, so an agent can place it immediately among update_tenant/create_tenant/delete_tenant.

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?

Explicitly routes creation to create_tenant and removal to delete_tenant, and adds a prerequisite workflow hint (call get_integration_guide before writing consuming app code). It does not, however, say anything about when to prefer get_tenant over this tool or any conditions where an update should be avoided.

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