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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the bar for extra context is lower. The description adds valuable behavior: changes apply only after exact confirmation, public shares may reflect changed shared fields immediately, and execution/signature status cannot be changed. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 tightly packed sentences and no fluff. The key precondition and limitation are front-loaded. It loses one point because it doesn't mention idempotency_key or confirmation_token semantics, which would help operational use.

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 mutation tool with a rich schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what can change, when it takes effect, and what cannot change. It doesn't explain the expected_version/idempotency flow or confirmation_token relationship, but the schema and annotations cover the rest.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the semantic category 'address-free planning stakeholder fields' and the constraint 'execution and identity fields are excluded,' which adds meaning absent from the schema. It doesn't enumerate each parameter, but it conveys the intent clearly enough for an agent to map the changes object to planning fields.

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?

Description opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Change selected address-free planning stakeholder fields after exact confirmation at the current cap-table version.' This clearly identifies what the tool mutates and under what precondition, and distinguishes it from the sibling cap_table.update (cap-table-level) and cap_table.create_stakeholder/delete_stakeholder.

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 says this changes planning fields and explicitly excludes execution/signature status, and mentions exact confirmation at the current version. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the field-scoping and confirmation precondition give clear context for when to use it versus create/delete/update siblings.

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