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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation requires org:admin and is audited, and it explains the partial-update semantics, though it does not discuss reversibility or side effects beyond what the schema implies.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the partial-update distinction. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant restatement.

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 ontology mutation tool with a rich input schema and an output schema, the description supplies the key missing context: admin requirement, audit behavior, and partial-update versus replacement semantics. The remaining details are covered by the schema and output schema.

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 all five parameters are already documented in detail. The description only broadly references status and primary/title keys, adding no parameter-level meaning beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: set an object kind's status and primary/title keys. It also distinguishes itself from memory_ontology_object_kind_set by explaining that this is a partial update rather than a replacement of description and properties_schema.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use condition: use this for a partial update that leaves description and properties_schema untouched. It also names the alternative sibling, memory_ontology_object_kind_set, and explains when that tool's full-replacement behavior applies.

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