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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral value: it discloses partial-update semantics and, importantly, that changing default fees is NOT retroactive because existing deals snapshot their fees. It does not cover auth/permission needs, uniqueness failure behavior, or the response.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences with no filler; the mutable-field list, patch semantics, and the critical fee-snapshot caveat are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema but full schema coverage, the description covers the essential behavioral caveats. Remaining gaps (permissions, name-collision errors, return value) are modest given the rich schema.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented, including the [0,1] fraction semantics and null-clearing for website/description. The description's 'Fee fractions are decimals in [0,1]' merely restates schema content, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Update an existing venture platform') with an enumeration of the mutable fields (name, website, description, default fees). An agent can distinguish it from update_venture_deal/update_venture_event by resource, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Only provided fields change' clarifies patch semantics, which implicitly tells the agent it can send a subset of fields. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives (e.g. create_venture_platform, delete_venture_platform) and no stated prerequisites or permissions.

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