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

Annotations already declare the tool as non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the behavioral nuance that metadata is 'privacy-filtered', which gives some operational context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, or failure modes, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden; the added privacy-filter qualifier justifies a mid-range score.

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, tightly written sentence with the action verb 'Update' placed first. It wastes no words and avoids redundancy. It could be slightly clearer about what 'hosted record context node' is, but the efficiency and front-loaded structure earn a strong score.

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 write tool with five parameters (including a nested object), no output schema, and no individual parameter descriptions, a one-sentence description is far from sufficient. It omits what the tool returns, how the parameters interrelate, what 'privacy-filtered' means in practice, and how this tool differs from several nearly identical context-management siblings. The tool's complexity demands substantially more contextual explanation.

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%, so the description must compensate for explaining the five parameters, but it mentions none of them. Terms like 'project metadata' vaguely point to content but do not clarify the meaning of projectId, idempotencyKey, details.status, summary, referenceIds, sessionId, or executionId. With no parameter descriptions in the schema and no elaboration in the description, the agent has to guess what each field is for.

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 names a specific verb ('Update') and an identifiable resource ('hosted record context node'), and adds a distinctive qualifier ('using privacy-filtered project metadata') that separates it from generic context writers like context_write or update_context_note. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with any sibling, so an agent must infer the difference from the name and wording rather than being told.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as context_write, update_context_note, or link_context_nodes. The description gives the operation and a vague qualifier but never explains prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or a decision context. An agent is left without explicit instructions for selecting this tool over very similar siblings.

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