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

The annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent mutation, so the description does not need to restate those traits. It adds the 'privacy-filtered project metadata' context, but does not disclose details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what exactly gets updated.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and key concept ('privacy-filtered project metadata') efficiently, which makes it easy to read and parse.

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 tool with eight parameters, four required, a nested object, and no output schema, yet the description provides only one sentence. It does not explain the purpose of expectedVersion, how idempotencyKey works, what values are valid in details, or what the tool returns or may fail on. The description is inadequate for an agent to call the tool correctly without deeper inference.

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 0%, yet the description names no parameters and does not explain the meaning of required fields like idempotencyKey, expectedVersion, or the nested details object. Parameter names and schema patterns offer some hints, but the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('Update') and identifies the target resource ('hosted publish presentation request'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like create_presentation_request or retry_presentation_request. The qualifier 'using privacy-filtered project metadata' adds scope, but 'hosted publish' is somewhat awkward and could be clearer about what is being hosted.

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 about when this tool should be used instead of alternatives such as create_presentation_request, fail_presentation_request, or retry_presentation_request. The word 'Update' implies a difference from create/retry, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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