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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations by disclosing versioning behavior: Pro retains the previous text as a version, while the free tier applies changes without history. This is useful context that annotations do not convey.

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 tightly written sentences: the first states the core operation and target fields, the second adds behavior context. No filler or repetition.

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 covers the main action and versioning behavior, but for an 8-parameter mutation tool without an output schema, it leaves out important guidance such as expected response, error behavior, or confirmation of success. Some parameters are also unaddressed.

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?

With only 13% schema description coverage, the description helps by naming several updatable fields (text, category, tags, variables, jurisdiction). However, it omits title and language parameters, so it does not fully compensate for the sparse schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and identifies the exact resource ('a clause') along with the editable fields. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like clause_add, clause_delete, and clause_get.

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 implies the tool is for modifying existing clauses, which is clear enough to distinguish it from clause_add or clause_delete. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any preconditions or exclusions.

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