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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the mutation surface (enabled/template/event fields) but says nothing about permissions, side effects, or whether unset fields are left untouched.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical earns its place by listing the concrete mutation targets. Minimal but effective.

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 no output schema and 25% schema coverage, the definition covers purpose and (via annotations) safety but under-documents the parameters and usage conditions. Adequate as a minimum-viable entry, not complete.

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 25%, so the description must compensate, yet it names only three fields (enabled, templateSlug, eventName). It leaves name, sendOnce, and delaySeconds undocumented in both schema and description, so it only partially fills the gap.

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 (Update) and resource (Action), and the parenthetical enumerates the kinds of changes (toggle enabled, change template, change event name). This distinguishes it implicitly from create_action/get_action/list_action/delete_action, though it never explicitly names a sibling.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (such as requiring an existing actionId), and no comparison to alternatives like create_action or delete_action. The intended usage is only inferable from the verb and tool name.

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