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

Goes beyond the annotations by flagging this as a write operation requiring ESG_HUB_WRITE_TOKEN, which the annotations alone would not convey. It still leaves a meaningful behavioral gap: whether the supplied facets replace all existing tags or merge with them is not stated, which matters for a tagging mutation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the rationale, then the restriction and alternative. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the auth requirement is stated. The one missing piece is merge-vs-replace semantics for the facets payload, which an agent would need to call this mutation safely.

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 100% and the nested facet object is documented per-property in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds the purpose of facets (filtering, discoverability, graph navigation) but no additional parameter syntax or format guidance.

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?

Names a specific verb (update) and resource (facet tags on an ESG Hub page), and states the accepted identifier forms. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_esg_page, which reads the same resource.

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?

Provides an explicit when-not ('Use only to change tags') and names the alternative operation for reading ('to read a page use get_esg_page'). Routing is unambiguous.

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