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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: only supplied fields change, omitted fields persist, and the update fails with a specific 409/P-059 on deleted groups. It stops short of stating auth requirements or whether the mutation is reversible.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: identity first, then the mutation contract, then the failure case. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the essentials — what mutates, what is preserved, and the one documented failure mode. Missing only peripheral detail such as required scopes or what the response returns, which is minor here.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by stating the cross-cutting optional-field contract (omitted fields are left unchanged), which governs how all seven optional parameters behave and is not expressed anywhere in 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update a policy group') that an agent can immediately place against the sibling CRUD set (lexq_groups_create/delete/get/list/reorder). It also distinguishes this from a full replace by stating partial-update semantics, though it doesn't name a sibling to route away from.

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?

Gives a real conditional: omitted fields remain unchanged (patch semantics), and a hard exclusion — a deleted group cannot be updated (409 P-059). However, it offers no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus lexq_groups_delete, lexq_groups_reorder, or lexq_deploy_rollback/undeploy for version-level changes.

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