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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it is a partial update where only supplied fields change, and passing null for parent_document_id detaches the clip from its document. This directly explains the destructive surface the annotation only flags. It still omits permission requirements or what happens to unsent fields' side effects.

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 short sentences, zero filler: the first names the resource and the mutable fields, the second states the patch guarantee. The field list and the scoping rule are both front-loaded with no redundancy.

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-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the mutable surface and the partial-update contract, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Gaps are minor: no mention of auth/workspace scoping or whether title can be cleared, though workspace_id is documented in the 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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description usefully compensates: it maps the meaningful fields (title, note, summary, parent_document_id) and explicitly defines the null semantics for the parent link ('null lo suelta'), which the schema only hints at. It does not mention clip_id or workspace_id, but those carry their own schema descriptions.

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 (edita) plus resource (clip) and enumerates the editable fields (título, nota, resumen, documento padre), so an agent can distinguish it from update_document/update_canvas/update_task by the resource alone. It does not explicitly name a sibling or draw the boundary against delete_clip or update_document, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is clearly the edit path for clips, and 'Sólo se toca lo que se manda' signals patch semantics, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. delete_clip for removal, get_clip for reading). Adequate but leaves the agent to infer routing.

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