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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely beyond that: PATCH-style semantics (only passed fields change) and settings merge behavior (tweak one key without resending the whole object). It omits permissions/auth and return behavior, so not a full 5.

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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the PATCH/merge nuance and the sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place.

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 partial-update tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers the important behavioral nuances (partial update, merge, status routing). It does not describe the returned payload, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 is 3. The description goes further by explaining that the update is PATCH-style (only passed fields change) and that settings are merged rather than replaced, which adds meaning beyond the schema's 'Settings to merge in' wording and clarifies the semantics of a nested object parameter.

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 (Update) and resource (a sequence's name, description, or settings), and explicitly carves out status changes to the activate/pause siblings. An agent can distinguish this from meisa_update_sequence_step, meisa_update_trigger, and the status-management tools without opening any 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?

Gives explicit routing: for status changes use meisa_activate_sequence or meisa_pause_sequence, noting they enforce state rules. This tells the agent both when to use this tool and which alternatives cover the adjacent case.

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