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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint: visibility is intentionally not editable in this tool, and the reason is an approval requirement. It does not claim any destructive effects and does not contradict the annotations.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: it names the resource and fields in the first sentence, then gives the single most important exception in the second. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It clearly explains the visibility restriction, which is the most salient domain rule, but it does not clarify whether updates are partial or full replacements, what the response is, or how the less obvious fields like supportContact and department should be valued.

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?

The description only restates the field names already visible in the schema: description, icon, tags, department, support contact, and data classification. With schema coverage at only 25%, the description needed to add substantive meaning for the other parameters, but it does not explain formats, value semantics, or the update model. The application and context parameters are left to the schema's sparse notes.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Updates App Portal metadata') and enumerates the exact fields it affects. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly excluding visibility changes, which separates it from the approval-related sibling tools.

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?

The description explicitly states when not to use this tool: visibility changes are deliberately not editable here, and widening an audience requires an approval request. This gives clear routing guidance toward the approval flow while leaving metadata updates to this tool.

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