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

Annotations already declare write/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value beyond them: setting is_active=false is a soft delete that preserves links, work orders and visits. It does not disclose required permissions or what the response contains, so it stops short of a 5.

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, no filler: the field list comes first and the non-obvious soft-delete consequence is front-loaded right after. 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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, the definition covers the fields and the destructive-vs-soft-delete semantics well. It leaves the required site_id and the partial-update behavior (are omitted fields cleared or preserved?) unstated, which an agent would want.

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 only 13% (only site_id documented), so the description must compensate — it does so by naming all seven updatable fields and explaining the semantic effect of is_active, the one parameter whose meaning is not self-evident. It adds no format or validation detail for lat/lng or external_key, keeping it below 5.

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 and resource ("Update a site") and enumerates every mutable field, which lets an agent distinguish this from tascan_create_site, tascan_get_site and tascan_update_worker without opening a schema. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

"Write tier" implies this is a mutation and the is_active sentence implies when to use deactivation over removal, but the description never states prerequisites, when to prefer an alternative sibling (e.g. tascan_unlink_site), or whether omitted fields are left untouched. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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