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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that omitted fields are left unchanged, but it does not disclose side effects such as reordering ("place") shifting the positions of other points in the sphere, which an agent would want to know before invoking.

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 sentences with no waste: capabilities first, then the two operational essentials (partial update, id source). Every clause earns its place.

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 5-parameter partial-update tool with no output schema and decent annotation coverage, the description covers all four updatable fields and the id source. It is nearly complete; only return/confirmation behavior and reordering side effects are unaddressed.

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 80%, so the schema already documents place ("1 is the top"), sphere, point_id, and important. The description's restatement of those semantics is largely duplicative, leaving the baseline of 3 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Rename a focus point") and then enumerates every mutation the tool supports: star/unstar, move sphere, reorder. This clearly separates it from add_focus_point, delete_focus_point, and list_focus without the agent needing to open schemas.

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?

"Send only what changes" gives explicit partial-update guidance, and "Point ids come from list_focus" routes the agent to the sibling that supplies the required point_id. It lacks any when-not guidance or prerequisites (e.g. permissions), but the operational context is clear.

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