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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only that it updates and uses 'privacy-filtered project metadata,' without elaborating on idempotency semantics, side effects, or what privacy-filtering implies. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentence with no filler, which is structurally concise. However, the wording is cryptic and front-loads the confusing 'hosted save investigation' phrase rather than a clear statement of scope.

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?

With six parameters, a nested details object, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far from sufficient. The agent is not told what the required parameters mean, what the update affects, or what response to expect.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters, including the required projectId and idempotencyKey. The phrase 'privacy-filtered project metadata' vaguely hints at projectId but provides no format, purpose, or relationship to the other parameters.

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 verb ('update') and a resource ('hosted save investigation'), but the resource phrase is awkward and unclear — it could mean a saved investigation, a saved host, or some domain-specific entity. It does not clearly differentiate this from sibling update tools such as update_finding or update_report.

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 to use this tool versus alternatives like create_finding, update_finding, or delete_investigation. The description provides no context about selection criteria, prerequisites, or conditions where another sibling would be more appropriate.

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