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

Annotations already declare write/destructive/idempotent, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds non-obvious context: the operation is a partial field-level change and is backed by PUT /customers/{customerId}. It does not disclose what happens to omitted fields explicitly or how uniqueness errors on display_name surface, but the partial-update semantics are real 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 tight sentences plus an endpoint, with the WRITE marker and the partial-update caveat front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant fact comes first.

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 29-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the write action and naming rule but omits mutation mechanics an agent would want (omitted-field behavior, permission/auth expectations, failure modes such as duplicate display_name). Adequate but thin for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 29 parameters and only 28% schema description coverage, the description should carry far more weight than it does; it only clarifies the first_name/last_name/display_name trio and says nothing about tags, assigned_to, lead_source_id, pipeline_status_id, or the address fields. Most parameters are left for the schema to imply.

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) and resource (one customer), and the parenthetical "only the fields you pass" pins down that this is a partial update rather than a replacement, which separates it cleanly from fieldpulse_create_customer and fieldpulse_get_customer. An agent knows exactly what operation it is choosing.

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 one conditional rule ("If FieldPulse asks for a name, include first_name/last_name or display_name"), which is genuinely useful for satisfying the API, but never says when to prefer this over create_customer or how to obtain a customer_id first. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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