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

Annotations provide only trivial hints (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) which are neutral, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'update', which is a restatement of the tool's name. It does not disclose side effects, whether it's a partial or full update, authorization requirements, or any impact on financial calculations. No value beyond the schema is added.

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, concise sentence, which is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so terse that it omits critical information needed for correct invocation. It earns its place in that it avoids verbosity, but the brevity is a disservice given the tool's complexity. It is not overlong but under-informative.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with 10 parameters, 90% of which are undocumented in the schema, and no output schema. The description provides minimal purpose ('for financial calculations') and nothing else. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral transparency, and parameter explanation. An agent cannot call this tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 only 10% (only team_id has a description). The description does not explain any of the 10 parameters, such as industry, annualRevenue, or emailReportsEnabled, beyond what the types imply. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage by clarifying the meaning or purpose of the fields. An agent would be left guessing what 'averageHourlyRate' means in the context of financial calculations.

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 the action ('Update'), the resource ('clarity team settings'), and a specific purpose ('for financial calculations'). This is clear enough to distinguish it from other updateClarity* tools, though it doesn't enumerate which settings are updatable. The verb and resource are specific, and it is not a tautology.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisite conditions, and no exclusions. It simply states what it does. There is no mention of the read counterpart (getClarityTeamSettings) or any routing criteria. An agent has no context for selecting this over other update tools.

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