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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is clear. The description adds valuable context by naming allowed case states and disclosing the return value ('updated case with its event history and approval batches'), going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and each sentence adds new information (fields, constraint, scope, exclusions, return value). No filler or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to process.

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 simple update tool with complete schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description sufficiently covers scope, constraints, alternatives, and return value. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly states the return payload, making the tool fully understandable.

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 100%, and both title and data have descriptive property descriptions. The description adds a constraint ('Provide at least one field') that is implicit in the schema's optionality but useful. It does not add deeper semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Edit') and clearly identifies the resource (a case) and the exact fields modified ('title and/or its free-form data payload'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating that other case attributes (status, priority, labels) have dedicated endpoints, preventing confusion with other update tools.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: it names the applicable case states ('pending, in-progress, and settled cases') and states the requirement to provide at least one field. It also explicitly excludes other attributes and points to their dedicated endpoints, giving clear alternatives.

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