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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses a real behavioral consequence — that changing latitude, longitude, surface, or type_local invalidates the cached estimate and refresh happens lazily on the next read — plus a zero-credit cost. It does not explain what the destructiveHint=true actually destroys or whether omitted optional fields are preserved (merge) or reset, which is the main remaining ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the required parameter, then optional fields, then the side-effect note and cost — a clean, scannable structure. The enumerated optional field list largely duplicates the schema keys, which is the only wasted space.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, it covers the required input, the affected fields, the read-cache side effect, and cost. The gap is partial-update semantics and error/permission behavior, which an agent would still want before calling it on a real record.

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 coverage is 100%, and each field description already carries the same cache-invalidation notes the description repeats (e.g. surface, latitude, longitude, type_local). The required/optional split is useful framing, but the description adds no syntax, format, or unit meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Update metadata for a portfolio property" gives a specific verb plus resource and is clearly distinct from get_/add_/delete_portfolio_property siblings. It does not explicitly state that it will not create or remove a property, but the update scope is unambiguous.

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 establishes clear context: this is for mutating an existing property's metadata, with `id` mandatory and the other ten fields optional. It also names the follow-up path (get_portfolio_property) that triggers the estimate refresh, though it gives no explicit when-not or alternative-tool guidance.

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