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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds one behavioral fact beyond that — it does not re-decompose the request — but omits whether the update is partial or full-replace, whether omitted fields are left untouched, and any auth/ownership requirement.

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 sentences, no filler. The mutable-field list is front-loaded and the decompose caveat follows immediately as the actionable next step.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the field surface and the decompose relationship, but leaves patch-vs-replace semantics and permission requirements unstated — meaningful gaps for a write tool.

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 only 13% (only requestId documented), so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it names title, description, budget, deadline, urgency, and 'contact info' (covering requesterEmail/requesterWallet). It still adds no format hints for deadline or the meaning of the urgency enum values.

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 (capability request) and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool touches. It explicitly distinguishes itself from pcc_decompose_request ('does not re-decompose'), but does not differentiate from other request siblings like pcc_submit_request or pcc_publish_request.

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 one concrete routing cue: call pcc_decompose_request afterwards if a fresh DAG is wanted. That is genuinely useful sequencing guidance, but there is no statement of when to use this over alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g. ownership, request state) required to update.

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