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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as partial vs full update, permission requirements, or side effects on related records. Since the description contributes nothing beyond annotations, it does not meet the bar for adding value.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action immediately and avoids filler or repetition, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The description is minimal and does not address key contextual aspects such as whether the update is partial or full, how the 'current domain' is defined, or what happens when the object does not exist. With no output schema and only sparse behavioral annotations, the description leaves an agent without enough context to fully anticipate the operation's outcomes or edge cases.

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%, so each parameter (data, uuid, tenant, object_type) is already documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning about how parameters relate or how to construct the data object. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic load, and the description adds no supplementary detail.

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 'Update an existing object in the current domain' clearly states the verb (update), the resource (existing object), and the scope (current domain). It differentiates from siblings like crud_create, crud_delete, crud_get, and crud_search by the update action. It is not a tautology and adds the 'current domain' context, making the purpose 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crud_create or crud_delete. It does not mention preconditions, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The usage context is only implicit from the tool name and sibling list, which is insufficient per the rubric.

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