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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: the name-change rate limit and the fact that the API key remains unchanged.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The main action and key constraints are front-loaded, and the note about the key staying the same is easy to scan.

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 three-optional-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, key constraints, and the unchanged API key. It could say more about failure cases or what the response confirms, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 all three parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds limited extra meaning, mainly reinforcing that the key is not changed, so it sits at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and names the affected resources ('public description', 'name'), so the operation is immediately clear. It indirectly distinguishes from registration by saying the same rules as registering apply, but it does not explicitly name the sibling tool or draw a sharp boundary.

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 states what can be updated and includes a useful constraint ('once a day' for name changes) plus a reference to registration rules. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus register_agent or when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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