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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating, destructive operation. The description adds attachment behavior (hosted-URL-only, mimetype routing to voice/video notes, 'supported senders only'), but does not disclose the critical patch semantics — whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared — which lives only in per-parameter schema text.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource+ID, then the supported fields, then the attachment note. The middle field list is long but informative and nothing is redundant. Efficient overall.

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 18-parameter tool with nested objects, three enums, and no output schema, the description is thin: it never explains the template-vs-generated mode switching that governs several parameters, nor the follow-up step timing model. The rich schema compensates, but the description alone is not sufficient for this complexity.

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 72% (above the 50% threshold), so the schema carries most parameter meaning, and the description's field list (name, context, connect message, first message, follow-ups, model, variables) only restates a subset of the 18 parameters. It adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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+identifier ("Update an existing LinkedNav prompt template by ID") and enumerates the updatable field groups. An agent can instantly distinguish this from create_prompt, get_prompt, and delete_prompt without opening any schema.

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?

"Update an existing ... by ID" implies the tool operates on prompts that already exist, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. must the prompt exist, does it require the same type), and no mention of create_prompt as the alternative for new records.

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