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 partly covered. The description adds nothing on top: it does not explain what makes an 'update' destructive, whether omitted fields are preserved, whether partial updates are allowed, or what permissions are required. With a destructive write and no annotation-explaining context, this is a real gap.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded and free of waste, which is good. But for a nine-parameter destructive mutation tool the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than economy, so it does not earn a 4 or 5.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is not required to explain returns, but it also omits mutation semantics, permission requirements, and any hint of the destructive behavior flagged in annotations. For a 9-param write tool in a large sibling set, this leaves the agent materially under-informed.

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% and the parameter docs are unusually rich (e.g., pinned explains per-user semantics and the 409 on Automations, VPN/sandbox params explain 'direct'/'standard'/UUID/null). The description only gestures at 'display name or delivery settings', so it neither adds nor detracts from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource ('Update an agent'), which distinguishes it from createAgent/deleteAgent/getAgent. However, the stated scope ('display name or delivery settings') understates the schema, which also covers pinned, thread_id, agentic_memory_enabled, and computer-use VPN/sandbox pinning. An agent reading only the description would not know most of what it can change.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as moveAgent/moveAgentsToFolder for placement changes or upsertAgentTrigger for trigger configuration. The agent must infer the boundary from sibling names alone.

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