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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so safety profile is partly covered. The description usefully adds partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass are changed'), but omits that a single-use approval_id may be required and says nothing about how non-passed fields behave on error or concurrency.

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 no waste, and the partial-update behavior is front-loaded after the trigger. The first sentence is a subjectless fragment ('When a life event's details need correcting'), which is slightly awkward but not verbose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and parameters are fully covered by the schema. However, for a mutation tool whose parameter set includes a single-use approval_id, the description should mention the approval precondition; it leaves an agent to discover that from the schema alone.

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 100%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema itself, which is the baseline 3 case. The description's 'only the fields you pass are changed' adds meaningful PATCH-style semantics about optional parameters, but no format or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 never states the verb+resource directly; it conveys an update action only indirectly via 'details need correcting.' The name and title ('Update Life Event') carry the actual purpose, so the description adds little to distinguishing it from life_events.create/delete/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?

It does give a usage condition ('when a life event's details need correcting'), which implies this is the tool to reach for once an event exists. But it names no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to life_events.create/delete, and the approval_id requirement is not mentioned as a precondition.

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