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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false. The description adds the useful clarification that this only records a platform-side mapping and does not itself move git files. But it never addresses the destructiveHint — e.g. that an update overwrites the prior mapping — and says nothing about auth needs, so it stays at baseline-added value.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the mutation and its target, then the workflow context. No filler, though the second sentence is terse enough to be slightly ambiguous about sequencing.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema and only 33% schema coverage, the description is thin: it does not explain partial-update semantics, what happens to omitted fields, auth requirements, or the duplicated parameter spellings. The annotations cover the safety profile, and the description covers intent, so it is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 only 33% across 9 params, and the description names the folder-path/repository/branch fields it touches, which maps to the schema's intent. It does not explain the duplicated snake_case vs camelCase parameter pairs, nor does it clarify that botId/projectApiKey are per-call credentials (left to the schema), so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Update mapped plans/tests folder paths ... on the platform') and lists the optional fields touched (repository, plans branch). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get-git-folder-mapping by naming only the mutation, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

The closing sentence gives real context ('Agent scaffolds folders in a PR; this records platform mapping'), which tells the agent this is a bookkeeping step after scaffolding rather than a git write. However, there is no when-not guidance, no mention of get-git-folder-mapping, and no prerequisites (auth, mapping must already exist).

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