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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: partial updates are applied per-field, plain collection fields replace the entire prior state, and delta fields are non-destructive and incompatible with their plain counterparts. This meaningfully enhances what the annotations alone convey and does not contradict them.

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?

Three dense sentences deliver the essential information without padding: partial update behavior, destructive replacement warning, delta-field preference, and a pointer to description-edit tools. The most important caveats are front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (17 parameters, destructive behavior, no output schema), the description covers the main hazards an agent must know: which fields replace versus increment, the constraint against mixing them, and where to route description edits. The annotations and rich schema descriptions fill the remaining detail, making this complete enough for correct invocation.

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 high (94%), so individual parameters are already well documented. The description adds group-level semantics by categorizing fields into plain replacement fields versus add_*/remove_* delta fields and warning about their incompatibility, which goes beyond the per-parameter schema descriptions.

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 action ('Update an existing epic'), identifies the resource by uid, and clarifies partial-update semantics ('only supplied fields are changed'). It also distinguishes the tool from description-editing siblings by explicitly routing those to preview_description_update / update_description.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: prefer add_*/remove_* delta fields for safe incremental edits, avoid plain collection fields because they destructively replace prior state, and never combine plain fields with their deltas. It also names the alternative tools for description edits, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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