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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true, but the description earns its keep by explaining WHY: it is a wholesale replace, an empty/omitted description clears the field, and display_name is required. That is precisely the behavior an agent could get wrong, and it goes well beyond the annotation hints.

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 the most dangerous trait (wholesale replace). The nested parentheticals make it dense to parse, but no sentence is 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?

Output schema and full annotations exist, so return values and safety profile are already documented; the description fills the remaining gap — mutation semantics, clearing behavior, and the read-then-write workflow — leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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% and the schema descriptions already state 'Set wholesale — an empty value clears it' and 'Required (cannot be blank)', so the description largely restates structured data. The only genuinely additive point is the immutable slug, which isn't a parameter at all, so the baseline of 3 holds.

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 the exact verb+resource (updates a schema's display_name and description) and immediately bounds scope by saying it does NOT change the JSON Schema body, naming create_schema_version as the tool that does. An agent can tell it apart from create_schema_version and update_* siblings 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?

Explicitly gives the workflow for the common case: to change one field while keeping the other, call get_schema first and pass both. It also names the alternative tool for body edits and states the slug is immutable, so when-to-use, when-not-to-use and prerequisites are all covered.

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