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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the need for exact confirmation, the version constraint, and the restriction on execution/signature fields. There is no contradiction with the annotations. Slightly more detail about idempotency-key behavior could help, but the description does not mislead.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the limitation is stated immediately afterward. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 7 parameters and a nested `changes` object, the description is concise but covers the essential behavior, preconditions, and field scope. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. Idempotency-key semantics are not explained, but the idempotent annotation and schema field name provide reasonable coverage.

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?

The description adds some meaning by tying 'address-free planning fields' to the `changes` object and 'current cap-table version' to `expected_version`/`confirmation_token`. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify `idempotency_key` or the required identifier parameters in detail. The schema names and constraints carry most of the parameter semantics.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Change selected address-free planning stakeholder fields') on a specific resource (SparkCap stakeholder), and immediately distinguishes it from create/delete operations. It also pins down what is out of scope: 'Execution and signature status cannot be changed.' This is unambiguous and differentiates the tool from its siblings.

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 clear usage context: this tool is for changing planning fields, requires exact confirmation, and operates at the current cap-table version. It also states an exclusion ('Execution and signature status cannot be changed'), which tells an agent when not to use this tool. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the guidance is concrete enough for selection.

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