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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description earns credit for explaining WHY — user_ids/contact_ids 'replace the current sets' rather than appending, which is the key destructive behavior an agent must not get wrong. It stops short of stating auth/permission needs or what the response contains.

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 the endpoint reference; the mutation scope leads, the dangerous replace semantics follow, and the raw API path is relegated to the end. 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 6-param partial-update tool with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers mutability scope, field mapping, and replacement semantics. It omits whether unmodified fields are preserved and what the call returns, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each field including the 'replaces the set' note. The description adds a semantic mapping (name=rename, stage_id=move, users=owners, contacts=leads) but no format or constraint details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('partially update') and resource ('board card'), then enumerates the three mutable aspects (name, stage, users/contacts) and names the backing endpoint. An agent can distinguish this from trengo_create_board_card without opening either 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?

'Partially update' implies the use case (modifying an existing card rather than creating one), which is meaningful context against the create sibling. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement about which fields can be omitted versus which must be supplied.

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