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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'update', implying mutation, but fails to disclose any side effects, prerequisites, or what happens to existing fields when updated. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single vague sentence that restates the tool name does not earn its place; it leaves the agent without actionable information.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to mention required parameters, return values, or interaction with other tools, making it impossible for an agent to use it correctly based on the description alone.

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 input schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 for full schema coverage, and no extra semantic context is provided.

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 description 'Update an existing tool' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'update_tool'. It identifies the verb (update) and resource (tool) but provides no detail about what aspects can be updated or how it differs from sibling tools like toggle_tool or reorder_steps.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or differences from sibling tools such as toggle_tool (which updates is_enabled) or reorder_steps (which updates step_order).

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