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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat the safety profile. It adds useful authentication context, including the need for a Proof account and that start_login does not unlock this tool. It does not explain mutation semantics such as whether channels replace or merge, or what happens to omitted fields.

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 short and front-loads the primary purpose before the access requirement. Every sentence is relevant, though the field list is mildly redundant with 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 four-parameter update tool with full schema coverage, destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and authentication adequately. It leaves some mutation-specific behavior to the schema, but the agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including id, name, channels, and timeout_seconds. The description only restates the mutable fields in prose and adds no syntax, format, or constraint details 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: update a HITL config, and names the mutable fields. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as create_hitl, delete_hitl, get_hitl, or list_hitls, but the update verb is specific enough to distinguish it in practice.

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?

It implies the tool is used to change an existing HITL config, and it gives an important authentication prerequisite. However, it does not state when to use this instead of create_hitl, delete_hitl, or get_hitl, nor does it describe any exclusions or partial-update conditions.

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