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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes beyond that by disclosing entitlement gating, consent requirements, idempotency-key stability, and an exact-intent confirmation step. It also explains the optimistic-concurrency mechanism ('current revision'), though it doesn't spell out what data is lost or whether the change is reversible.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action being performed. The final sentence partially restates the earlier 'using its current revision' phrase, a small redundancy, but overall it is tight and earns its 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 a destructive mutation tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers permissions, consent, idempotency, confirmation, and versioning. Gaps remain around project_id scoping and the confirmation_token's origin, but nothing critical to invoking the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it meaningfully maps to the nested fields: title, owner (owner_user_id), schedule (due_date/recurrence), and active state, plus idempotency_key and expected_version via 'current revision'. It does not explain project_id or the confirmation_token, so it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing obligation') and enumerates the mutable facets (title, owner, schedule, active state), which separates it from founder_ops.create_obligation. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or contrasting with related tools like disable_enrollment or complete_occurrence, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 concrete preconditions for use (Startup tier, both read and write consent, a stable idempotency key, exact-intent confirmation) and instructs the agent to read current state first before mutating. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative tool, but the context is well established.

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