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

Annotations give destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds important context: it is a JSON patch where omitted fields are preserved, it returns the updated document, it is an idempotent PATCH to a specific endpoint, and it explicitly scopes out version publishing and workflow changes. That goes well beyond what the annotations declare and clarifies why the operation is safely repeatable.

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 the mutated fields, followed by boundaries and return behavior. No filler.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, patch semantics, exclusions, return value and the underlying endpoint. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 partial-update semantics ("fields you leave out stay as they are") that the schema alone cannot convey. It also names the three mutable fields, though it does not discuss the identifier parameter beyond the endpoint path.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ("change the title, description and/or folder of a controlled document in Safefood 360") and an explicit WRITE prefix. It is immediately distinguishable from read siblings such as safefood360_get_document and safefood360_list_documents.

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?

Draws clear boundaries in the negative: it does not publish a new version or alter the review workflow, which tells the agent when this is the wrong tool for versioning or review changes. It does not name the specific alternative sibling to use for those cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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