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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds behavior those annotations cannot express: assignment triggers emails to the new and previous assignee, omitting a field leaves it unchanged, and the return omits media links. The untrusted-data / prompt-injection warning is a genuine safety disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, then preconditions, side effects, return shape and the safety note — every sentence carries information. Slightly padded by "Provide at least one field to change," which is largely implied by the required id plus optional fields.

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, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers value sources, null-vs-omit semantics, side effects, response contents and an injection warning. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without a return schema.

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 each parameter's acceptable values, null-clearing semantics and maxItems are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the source tools for valid names/ids, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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) and resource (a Ybug feedback item) followed by the exact fields it can change: status, priority, type, assignee, tags. This clearly distinguishes it from read siblings like get_feedback and list_feedback 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?

"Use names or ids from get_project, list_project_members and list_tags" and "Provide at least one field to change" give concrete preconditions and route the agent to the lookup siblings that supply valid values. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool versus a sibling, so it is not a full 5.

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