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

Annotations provide only destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden. It does not disclose whether this is a full replacement (PUT semantics) that blanks omitted fields, whether partial updates are safe, permission requirements, or any return shape. The one useful clue, the PUT verb, is left unexplained.

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 with the action list front-loaded and the API mapping tacked on. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with 29% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the headline use cases but omits the id requirement, the role of personId, and the PUT replacement semantics. Adequate but clearly short of what this tool needs.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: 'mark it complete' maps to isCompleted, 'rename' to name, 'retype' to type, and 'reassign' to assignedTo/assignedUserId. It says nothing about the required id or what personId does, so the undocumented half of the parameters remains opaque.

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) plus resource (task) and enumerates the concrete mutations available: complete, rename, retype, reassign. The 'FUB: PUT /v1/tasks/{id}' line pins the exact endpoint. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like fub_create_task or fub_list_tasks, but the verb alone separates it cleanly.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus fub_create_task (new task) or fub_update_deal, and no prerequisites such as needing an existing task id or what happens if the id is unknown. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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