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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new fact (deletion is unsupported) but says nothing about permissions, overwrite semantics for omitted fields, or concurrency handling beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the delete limitation. It is lean to the point of being undersized for a 10-parameter mutation, but no sentence is wasted.

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, 10-parameter mutation with only 50% schema coverage, two sentences are inadequate. The output schema removes any need to explain return values, but the description still omits permissions, partial-update behavior, and optimistic-concurrency context that an agent would need to call this safely.

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 only 50%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented half of the 10 parameters, but it mentions none of them by name. The one useful detail it does give (edits apply to a revision) is already implied by the setupId/revision fields, so it adds essentially no parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb ("Edits") and resource ("an existing TuneWorks setup revision"), which clearly separates it from create_setup and archive_setup. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundaries from the verb alone.

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?

"Edits an existing ... revision" implies usage (existing records, not new ones) and "Deletes are not supported" rules out one intent, which is a partial when-not. However, no alternative is named — nothing tells the agent to use archive_setup to remove a setup or create_setup for a new one — so guidance is only implied.

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