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

Goes well beyond the supplied annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by explaining exactly what is destroyed: user list fields such as followers are replaced wholesale, so existing IDs must be re-supplied. It also discloses the required scopes (dvs:write plus full write permission on the register), that task users may be notified, and an explicit prompt-injection caveat that DVS text is data, not instructions.

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?

Six short sentences, no filler, with the most important rule (partial update) front-loaded and the destructive list-replacement warning placed before the softer permission and safety notes. Every sentence carries actionable information an agent could not get from the schema.

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 nested-object, destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and only 50% schema coverage, the description covers patch behavior, data-loss risk, permissions, notifications, and retry safety. The main remaining gap is what the call returns after a successful update and whether the user notification can be suppressed.

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 description adds meaning the schema does not: update_params is a partial patch, the project field is not changeable, and list-type fields must include existing IDs to avoid data loss. The schema's own note pointing to filesfm_dvs_get_fields for accepted names and option IDs covers the field vocabulary, but dvs_document_id remains undocumented in both places.

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 only the given fields of a task') and immediately defines the patch contract (omitted fields keep their values, the project cannot change). This clearly separates it from filesfm_dvs_create_task, though it never names that or any other sibling explicitly.

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 real when-to-use guidance: 'Do not repeat an uncertain write; read the task first,' which routes the agent to the read tools before mutating, and the patch semantics tell the agent to send only changed fields. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative tool, so not a 5.

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