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

Annotations only convey readOnly=false, openWorld=true, and destructive=false; the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: wholesale replacement semantics for destinations and widgets, 'a singular `widget` key is silently ignored,' the deprecated `context` alias with 'never send both,' and 'schedule.mode NOW converts to on-demand ACTIVE and sends immediately.' No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Although long, the description is front-loaded with purpose, then prerequisites, then safety-critical DANGER ZONE guidance, then parameter semantics, and ends with concrete examples. Every sentence carries distinct operational value, and the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly: prerequisites, confirmation requirements, forbidden operations, replacement-versus-patch semantics, and examples. The lack of a return-value note is a minor omission given the depth of invocation guidance.

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%, which sets a baseline of 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: reportContext is a partial patch, 'empty conditionsCel clears the filter,' destinations 'must be non-empty; omit to leave it unchanged,' and widgets are always an array whereas the singular `widget` key is ignored. These are operationally crucial clarifications beyond the JSON 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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Apply declarative partial changes to one non-archived report.' It further distinguishes itself by noting 'Omitted fields are preserved' and 'Archived restore is forbidden in MCP,' which separates it from create/archive siblings without needing to open their schemas.

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: 'Call get_skill with skillId: "reports" first when changing DIGEST content, schedule, destinations, or reportContext.' It also provides clear when-not/confirmation instructions: a DANGER ZONE for schedule/widget/destination changes requiring user confirmation, while 'Pure pause plus metadata / reportContext edits can apply immediately.'

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