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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Update' aligns but adds no new behavioral insight—no side effects, permissions, or failure modes are disclosed. The description is redundant with the annotations and provides no additional context.

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 one short sentence, so it is concise in length, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks structure and fails to front-load any actionable detail.

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 tool with 7 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't clarify the tool's purpose, usage, or parameters, making it impossible for an agent to call it 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?

The description offers zero parameter-level explanation. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it doesn't mention projectId, taskId, idempotencyKey, expectedVersion, or details. An agent would have no clue what each parameter means or how they relate.

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 a verb ('Update') and a resource ('hosted inbox start'), but 'inbox start' is ambiguous—it doesn't clarify what is being started or updated, and it doesn't distinguish from siblings like inbox_claim, inbox_list, or complete_inbox_task. The phrase 'privacy-filtered project metadata' adds no functional clarity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving an agent without context to choose between this and related inbox tools.

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