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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a partial-update behavior ('Trimite doar câmpurile de schimbat') and an existing-resource precondition, but it does not mention permissions, response behavior, validation, or failure modes.

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 two short sentences with the action stated first and a direct usage rule second. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 a mutation tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It covers the partial-update rule but omits parameter-level details, return value expectations, and edge-case behavior that an agent would need for confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only says to send changed fields and does not explain gift_id, name, price, url, or description individually. This is a minimal improvement over the raw schema and leaves most parameter semantics to inference.

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, 'Actualizează', and a specific resource, 'un cadou existent'. The word 'existent' clearly distinguishes this from create_gift, and the resource 'cadou' distinguishes it from update_gift_list.

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 second sentence, 'Trimite doar câmpurile de schimbat', gives clear guidance on how to use the tool: send only fields that need changing. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like create_gift or get_gift, leaving that inference to the agent.

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