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

The phrase 'using privacy-filtered project metadata' hints at a behavioral detail (it uses filtered data), but it is vague and does not explain what that means in practice. Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive, so the description adds minimal value beyond them. No side effects, retry semantics, or required preconditions are disclosed.

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 sentence, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks substantive content and does not front-load critical distinctions or constraints that would help an agent. The brevity works against clarity, not for it.

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 8 parameters, a nested object, required idempotency and versioning fields, and a complex domain (presentation requests, retries, privacy filtering), the description is woefully incomplete. It omits any mention of return values, error conditions, or how the tool fits into the workflow. Coupled with no output schema, an agent lacks the necessary information to invoke it correctly.

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 provides no information about any of the 8 parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the meaning or role of projectId, requestId, idempotencyKey, expectedVersion, or the nested details object. An agent would have no semantic grounding for these crucial fields.

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 specifies a verb ('Update') and a resource ('hosted retry presentation request'), which is more than a tautology. However, 'retry presentation request' is ambiguous—it does not clarify whether 'retry' is a type of request or an operation being performed, and it does not differentiate this tool from other presentation update tools like create_presentation_request or fail_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 use this tool versus the many sibling presentation tools. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description offers no context that would help an agent decide between this and, say, update_context_note or create_presentation_request.

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