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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a field list and does not disclose partial vs. full update behavior, overwrite semantics, permission needs, or whether omitted fields remain unchanged.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler that states the action immediately. It is structurally efficient, though its brevity leaves important behavior unspecified.

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 destructive mutation with 5 parameters (only 1 required), 60% schema coverage, and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient. Key details such as partial-update behavior, status semantics, and workspace scoping are absent.

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 60%, with name and status undocumented anywhere. The description names those fields but adds no format, allowed values, or meaning beyond their names, and it ignores workspace_id and deliverable_id, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 (Cambia) and resource (entregable) plus the fields it can modify (nombre, estado, fecha de entrega), so the action is understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as create_deliverable, get_deliverables, or update_task, so an agent could still confuse create vs. update.

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?

Gives no when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance; it merely lists editable fields. It never states prerequisites or explains when to choose update_deliverable over create_deliverable or another update tool.

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