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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only one behavioral nuance ('privacy-filtered project metadata') and says nothing about what is written, side effects, or auth needs. Notably, the name implies creating/starting an execution while the description says 'Update', an internal inconsistency, though it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

It is a single sentence with no filler, which is structurally tight, but for a nine-parameter mutation tool the sentence is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, and its verb/resource phrasing is muddled.

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 nine-parameter write tool with no output schema and incomplete schema descriptions, the one-line description leaves the agent without enough to call it correctly. The safety annotations help, but the purpose, usage, and parameter meaning are all left largely unexplained.

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?

Nine parameters with only 56% schema description coverage, and the description contributes zero parameter information — no explanation of executionId, trigger, projectIds, or requestMetadata. It fails to compensate for the undocumented half of 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 largely restates the tool name ('Update hosted begin agent execution'), adding only the cryptic qualifier 'using privacy-filtered project metadata'. It never states what an execution record is or what the write accomplishes, and it gives no basis to distinguish it from siblings like finalize_agent_execution, get_agent_execution_status, or record_agent_execution_activity.

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 statement of when this tool should be used, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many execution/session siblings. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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