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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses the side effects of isPublic (publishes/unpublishes the public page) and branding fields (brand applied to every coach's client-facing surfaces) – real behavioral context beyond the schema. It omits permission/authorization requirements and reversibility for an 11-param mutation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the field-specific behavior. Little waste, though the branding sentence packs two distinct parameters together slightly densely.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a few field side effects but leaves authorization requirements, most parameter meanings, and the preview-vs-execute return behavior largely undocumented.

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 18%, so the description must compensate. It explains three parameters (isPublic, brandingEnabled, brandColor), but the majority – city, name, description, contactEmail, contactPhone, organizationId, communityEnabled – get no additional meaning beyond their types.

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+resource ('Update a gym's profile'), so the agent immediately knows the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like update_organization or get_organization_profile, leaving ambiguity about which profile-update tool to choose.

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 confirm-gating note and 'Only the fields you pass change' imply a partial-update workflow, but the description never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_organization. Usage is inferable from the name rather than stated.

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