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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: partial-update semantics, the eventDate constraint tied to initial_investment, rejection of retroactive moves, the override tri-state behavior including the non-obvious fact that null equals omitting, and that resetOverrides recomputes carry from deal terms. This is exactly the non-schema behavior an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation and constraints, then a well-structured bullet block for the override rules. Every sentence carries real information; the formatting is slightly heavy but not padded.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers update semantics, validation constraints, and the override/reset behavior thoroughly. Gaps are minor: no note on permissions or on what the response returns, though the latter is not strictly required.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description exceeds it by explaining the override semantics of gpCarryAmount/lpNetAmount (what flips which flag), the no-op nature of null, and what resetOverrides actually does. It does not, however, clarify navAfter/grossAmount/quantityPct beyond the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Update a venture event") and immediately scopes it with partial-update semantics ("Only provided fields change"). It does not name a sibling tool for comparison, and the create/delete counterparts must be inferred from the mention of "delete and recreate".

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance: event type cannot be changed, so delete and recreate instead; and to clear an override use resetOverrides rather than null. It does not explicitly name delete_venture_event or create_venture_event as the alternatives, but the when-to-use/when-not logic is clear.

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