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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes further by disclosing that a single invocation fans out into up to three sequential PUTs and that partial application is possible (partial success then stop). It still omits auth requirements and whether failed changes are rolled back.

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 dense sentences: purpose first, then mechanics. No filler, and the fail-fast caveat is placed where it matters.

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 5-param destructive mutation with no output schema, it covers the critical non-obvious behavior (multi-call, ordered, fail-fast). Missing only reversal semantics and the response shape on partial failure.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by mapping each field to its own endpoint and stating the execution order and pairing constraint for name fields.

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 and resource ('Correct a customer's contact details') and enumerates the exact fields it can change. An agent can distinguish this update path from momence_create_member and momence_get_member without opening a 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?

Gives clear operating context: firstName+lastName must be supplied together, and the three fields are independent Momence calls executed in a fixed order that halts on first failure. It stops short of naming when to prefer an alternative tool or when not to use this one.

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