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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey. It does not mention side effects, transition rules, or return behavior. While annotations indicate non-readonly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description itself provides minimal additional transparency.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes a relevant example. Every word earns its place; no filler or restatement.

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 simple two-parameter update tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the core action and an example, though it could optionally mention status transition constraints. Overall, it is complete enough without being verbose.

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 some meaning to the status parameter by giving examples ('in_progress' or 'completed'), but does not explain annotation_id beyond its name. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter details.

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 the specific resource ('an annotation's status'), along with concrete examples ('in_progress or completed'). This makes it easily distinguishable from sibling tools that are mostly read or create operations.

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: use this tool when you need to change an annotation's status. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but for a simple update tool, the usage context is evident and no misleading guidance is given.

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