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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation ('Update', 'records platform mapping') but discloses no permissions required, no reversibility, no effect on unmapped/omitted fields, and does not explain the duplicated snake_case/camelCase parameter pairs in the schema. Behavioral context is thin for a write tool.

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 tight sentences with the mutation and its resource front-loaded, and the second sentence adds useful workflow context. Slightly cryptic phrasing ('Agent scaffolds folders in a PR') but no wasted words.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, 7 parameters all optional, and 14% schema coverage needs substantially more description than provided. Key gaps: why every parameter is optional, what happens on a partial update, and the purpose of the duplicated parameter names.

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 14% (just plansBranch), so the description must compensate, and it only loosely maps to the parameter groups ('plans/tests folder paths', 'repository / plans branch'). It does not explain the duplicated plansFolderPath/plans_folder_path and repositoryFullName/repository_full_name pairs, the empty-string reset behavior, or the fact that all 7 parameters are optional.

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 (mapped plans/tests folder paths on the platform), which clearly differentiates it from the sibling get-git-folder-mapping reader. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the write/read distinction is inferable from the name and description.

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 second sentence clarifies the workflow context — the agent scaffolds folders in a PR and this tool only records the resulting platform mapping — which implies when to use it. However, it names no alternative and gives no explicit when-not guidance or prerequisites (e.g., when to call get-git-folder-mapping first).

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