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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds a modest hint that only 'privacy-filtered project metadata' is submitted, but says nothing about what the retry actually changes, side effects, or error/conflict behavior, so the addition is thin.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, so it is appropriately sized and readable. It loses a point because the opening word 'Update' plus the restated resource name is slightly circular rather than front-loading the distinctive behavior.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with a nested details object and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: the schema carries parameter semantics and annotations carry the idempotency/safety profile, but the description itself never explains retry semantics, version-conflict recovery, or the result of the call.

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 100%, so each parameter's meaning (including idempotencyKey reuse and expectedVersion conflict semantics) is already documented in the schema. The description's 'privacy-filtered project metadata' loosely maps to the details object but adds no format, constraint, or usage detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies an update operation on a 'retry presentation request' with 'privacy-filtered project metadata', so the general intent is inferable. However, the phrasing is awkward and tautological ('retry presentation request' repeats the tool name), and it gives no differentiation from the surrounding presentation siblings like create_presentation_request, fail_presentation_request, or publish_presentation_request.

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 on when to invoke this tool versus create_presentation_request, fail_presentation_request, or publish_presentation_request, nor any stated preconditions such as needing an existing failed request or a prior read to obtain expectedVersion. The agent must guess the invocation context entirely.

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