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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description earns credit for explaining why ('Overwrites previous values', 'only the fields you pass are sent'), which reconciles the destructive hint with partial-update semantics. It omits auth/permission needs and error behavior for invalid status values.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and endpoint, with no filler. Every clause carries operative information (mutation type, partial semantics, overwrite, shortcut flag).

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, the description covers the essentials: partial update, overwrite risk, and the completion convention. It leaves unclear how to clear/unassign a field, status value validation, and failure behavior.

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 78%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a cross-parameter rule the schema cannot express: only supplied fields are sent. The 'set complete=true to mark it done' sentence largely repeats the schema's own description of that 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 ('change a task') plus the resource, and immediately clarifies the partial-update scope and the complete=true shortcut. It is unambiguous against the sibling farmbrite_create_task and farmbrite_get_task without opening either 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?

Makes clear this is for modifying an existing task and that only passed fields are sent, which tells the agent when this is preferable to a create call. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or when-not condition.

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