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

Annotations only cover safety (not read-only, not destructive, not open-world), so the description's additions matter: partial-update semantics, the 409 conflict condition for submitted applications, and an explicit auth token requirement. It stops short of saying whether unspecified fields are strictly preserved or how validation failures surface.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the partial-update rule, then the failure mode and auth requirement. No filler.

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 29-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotation detail beyond safety hints, the description covers the critical behaviors an agent needs: partial update, inherited validation, token requirement, and the 409 conflict. The main residual gap is the absence of any statement about the response payload.

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 17% across 29 parameters, so the description has to carry meaning. 'Same field set and validation rules as createExperienceApplication' usefully delegates the enumeration to a sibling tool, but it explains none of the individual fields, and the two country-related IDs (postalCountryId vs experienceCountryId) are only clarified inside the schema itself.

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 (update/save partial fields) applied to a named resource (Experience Application) with an explicit scope qualifier ('existing, not-yet-submitted'). This cleanly separates it from createExperienceApplication and submitExperienceApplication, both of which appear in the sibling list.

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?

Gives clear operating context: only pass the fields being changed, and it fails with 409 if already submitted, and it inherits the field set/validation of createExperienceApplication. It does not explicitly say which sibling to use in order to submit, so the routing guidance is strong but not fully closed.

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