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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: which field changes trigger re-embedding and which do not, which explains the non-idempotent hint. It does not cover what re-embedding costs or whether changes are 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and the partial-update nature, followed by the one caveat that actually matters. Nothing is padded.

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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema and incomplete schema descriptions, the definition covers the most consequential behavior (re-embedding) but leaves category_id semantics and return-value expectations unaddressed. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 only 33%, so the description must carry more weight, and it does explain the semantics of question/answer/keywords versus active. However, it never mentions category_id — an important omission since the agent cannot tell whether changing category_id also triggers re-embedding — and says nothing about the required id.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Update an FAQ") and clarifies the update is partial, which separates it from create_faq and delete_faq. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with them, but the operation 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?

"Partial update" implies the tool is for modifying existing FAQs with only the supplied fields, which is useful context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus delete_faq + create_faq or get_faq, nor any stated prerequisites such as the FAQ needing to exist.

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