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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'Only fields provided are updated (merge semantics)', 'Writes to the cache', and 'does not call the Power Automate API' — all important for predicting side effects. It doesn't cover error/response behavior, but that's a minor gap given the rich context provided.

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?

Three tightly scoped sentences front-load the plan requirement and key behavior. Every sentence earns its place: what it updates, the merge semantics, and the cache/API distinction. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite strong behavioral context, the tool has 18 parameters with only 33% schema coverage and no output schema. The description does not fully specify expected formats or meanings for several undocumented governance fields, nor does it state return behavior. For a high-complexity metadata update tool, this leaves notable gaps an agent would need filled.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for the 12 undocumented parameters. It only names a subset ('description, business impact, owner team, tags, monitor flag, notification settings, etc.') and leaves ambiguous fields like 'tier', 'security', 'critical', and 'businessValue' unexplained. The merge-semantics note helps operationally but doesn't clarify individual parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Update governance/metadata fields on a flow record in the Power Clarity store' and gives concrete field examples. It inherently distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_live_flow by anchoring on the store and explicitly noting it 'does not call the Power Automate API'.

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 description gives clear context for when to use this tool: updating stored governance/metadata fields, with the plan requirement and the cache-only behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the store vs. live distinction is strong enough to guide selection.

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