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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the token-cost tradeoff between patch and full code upload, but says nothing about reversibility, what a failed multi-patch update leaves behind, or how concurrency conflicts surface (that lives only in the schema).

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, both load-bearing: the first states scope, the second states the preferred mode and why. The guidance is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus the rich schema give an agent enough to call it correctly, including version safety via expected_version. The one real gap is disambiguation from the k6 and test-case update siblings, which the description does not address.

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%, including patch anchoring semantics, the code/patch exclusion, and expected_version's optimistic-concurrency behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's patch-over-code advice largely restates the schema's own 'prefer `patch`' note rather than adding new parameter meaning.

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 and resource ('Update an automation script's name or code') so the agent knows exactly what changes. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like k6_update_script or update_test_case, so the agent must infer which update tool targets which artifact.

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 an explicit preference rule between the two mutation modes ('Prefer `patch` over `code`') with the rationale, which is real decision guidance. It stops short of saying when to use this tool versus k6_update_script or apply_patch_and_run, so alternative-tool routing is left implicit.

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