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

The description discloses partial update semantics, the 409 failure on submitted applications, and the auth requirement. Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the structured data.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second explains the field set and usage, the third covers error handling and auth. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core operation.

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?

Given the complexity (29 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: update semantics, the critical precondition (not submitted), and the auth requirement. It doesn't mention the success response or other error cases, but the reference to createExperienceApplication fills in validation rules. A 4 is fair.

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?

With only 17% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the partial update rule ('only pass the fields you're changing') and referencing createExperienceApplication for the full field set and validation. However, it does not add meaning for most individual fields, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 'Update' and the resource 'existing, not-yet-submitted Experience Application'. It distinguishes from siblings by noting the update scope ('any subset of fields') and the precondition ('not-yet-submitted'), differentiating it from create and submit tools.

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?

Explicitly says to pass only changed fields, references createExperienceApplication for same field set and validation rules, and warns that it fails with a 409 if already submitted. Also states the required auth token. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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