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

The description goes beyond the minimal annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false) by detailing permission requirements for each updatable field, which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., what happens when completion status is set) or error conditions, but given the annotations are minimal, the added role context is valuable.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the action, the affected fields, and the permission constraints. No redundant information or verbose phrasing; it is concise and focuses on essential details.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's scope given its simplicity: it lists all updatable fields, specifies permission constraints, and implies the action targets an existing process. There are no nested objects or complex outputs to explain, and the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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?

The description clarifies that 'guidance' maps to the customPrompt parameter and 'completion status' maps to status, adding meaning beyond the schema's terse field descriptions. The schema already provides enums for status and visibility, and the description explains the purpose of each field, though it does not delve into value semantics beyond what's in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool updates a Clarity process's name, guidance, visibility, or completion status, which precisely distinguishes it from other update tools for different entities (e.g., updateClarityFolder, updateClarityLandscapeNode). The verb 'Update' and specific fields make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides role-based usage constraints (who can edit which fields) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like createClarityProcess or other update tools. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools, though the permissions hint at limitations.

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