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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by explaining exactly what destruction means: each passed field OVERWRITES the stored value, and an address object replaces the whole address. This partial-update/wholesale-replace distinction is the key risk and is not derivable from the annotations alone. Auth/permission requirements and error behavior are still unstated.

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 sentences, zero filler. The WRITE marker is front-loaded, field list second, the critical overwrite warning third, the exclusion fourth, and the HTTP endpoint last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation model, field scope, exclusions, and endpoint, which is most of what an agent needs. Missing pieces are permission/auth prerequisites and what the response contains, both of which matter for a destructive write.

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 real meaning the schema lacks: per-field overwrite semantics and the fact that the nested address object is replaced as a unit rather than merged. That is the one parameter behavior the schema cannot express on its own.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'WRITE:' verb marker and names the resource ('change fields of a guest'), then enumerates the exact field set. An agent can immediately separate this from tokeet_create_guest, tokeet_get_guest, or tokeet_update_task without opening any 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 a clear exclusion — 'Emails and phones have their own endpoints and are not changed here' — which routes the agent away from this tool for those fields. It also states that only passed fields are sent. It stops short of naming the sibling to use for creation vs update, so it is context-rich but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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