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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: omitted fields are preserved, `name` is immutable, and steps/context_tags are wholesale replacements rather than merges. That replacement semantics is exactly the destructive behavior an agent needs to know, though it doesn't say whether the change is reversible or what a bad proc_id does.

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?

The opening sentence front-loads the behavior correctly and the Args block is scannable. It is somewhat verbose in restating parameters, but each line carries information the schema lacks, so little is wasted.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the important ground: which fields change, what gets replaced, and what cannot be modified. Return value and error behavior for an invalid proc_id are unstated, which is the only meaningful gap.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does it well: it defines proc_id as a UUID, description as a one-sentence summary, steps as an ordered list with documented inner keys (order, action, optional target, optional parameters), and context_tags as a tag list. The nested step keys are the critical addition given the schema's bare additionalProperties object.

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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Update fields of an existing procedure') and adds partial-update scope ('only the fields passed change'), which cleanly separates it from store_procedure and delete_procedure. It doesn't explicitly name siblings like update_entity/update_task, but the resource noun does the differentiating work.

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?

The 'only the fields passed change' clause implies the intended partial-update use case, and 'name cannot be changed' rules out a misuse. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over store_procedure (replace) or how it relates to record_procedure_usage, so usage is only implied.

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