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

The description adds the key behavioral detail 'Only provided fields are modified,' which clarifies partial update behavior. This is valuable context beyond annotations that declare idempotent and not destructive. However, it lacks info on permissions or side effects.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the key behavioral note. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given annotations cover safety and idempotency, and schema fully documents parameters, the description is complete for typical use. It could mention permission requirements or validation rules, but those are minor 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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: 'Update a calendar's settings.' This distinguishes it from other calendar tools like create_calendar or get_calendar. However, it does not differentiate from many sibling update_* tools, which is acceptable given the unique resource.

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 implies usage: update calendar settings when modifications are needed. It does not state when to use this tool vs alternatives like neuron_create_calendar or neuron_delete_calendar, but the resource is specific enough that alternatives are obvious.

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