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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — that no provider-side work is kicked off — but with destructiveHint=true it should explain what makes this destructive (e.g., overwriting notes/owner) and whether omitted fields are preserved. It also says "owned" without stating the authorization requirement.

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 short sentences with the core action and the key behavioral constraint front-loaded; the trailing documentation URL is a compact pointer rather than padding. Nothing is wasted.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with five parameters, 40% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unexplained: partial-update behavior, permitted status transitions, ownership/auth requirements, and the meaning of "provider work" are all absent.

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 only 40%: todoId and projectId have no descriptions, and the status enum values are undocumented. The description supplies no parameter meaning at all — no mention of partial-update semantics, whether status transitions are constrained, or how notes/owner are merged — so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ("Update one owned launch task") and adds a scope qualifier ("one owned") that tells an agent this targets a single existing todo rather than a list. It is distinguishable from get_launch_todos, but it never names which sibling performs the alternative operation that does start provider work.

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?

The clause "without starting provider work" implies a boundary — use this for pure metadata edits rather than anything that triggers external work — but it never states when to choose this over get_launch_todos, create_recommended_asset, or the other siblings, and it doesn't define what "provider work" means. Usage must be largely inferred.

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