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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, so the mutation and idempotency profile is covered. The description usefully adds the permission scope and enterprise feature gating, but omits what the destructive update actually overwrites (e.g., whether omitted fields are cleared), which is the key unknown for a destructive 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the operation is stated first, then requirements. The 'Feature: governance (ENTERPRISE+)' fragment is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 destructive 8-parameter mutation with 25% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is under-specified: it never explains the partial-vs-full update semantics, field types, or which fields are optional beyond criterionId. Permissions and tier are covered, but the operational detail an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Eight parameters with only 25% schema description coverage: the description adds no meaning for name, order, weight, options, fieldType, criterionId, or description. With low coverage the description must compensate, and it offers nothing about what each updatable field does or whether the update is partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an org-specific evaluation criterion') and scopes it as org-specific, which distinguishes it from the create/list siblings in the naming family. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from create_evaluation_criterion or list_evaluation_criteria, but the verb makes the distinction obvious.

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?

Provides real gating context — 'Requires org.governance.manage' and 'Feature: governance (ENTERPRISE+)' — which tells an agent whether the call can succeed. It stops short of stating when to choose this over siblings or when not to use it, so usage is only implied.

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