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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/non-destructive profile is covered structurally. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the draft-status precondition and the fact that the response returns the updated name and version, which helps the agent understand the operation's effect.

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 compact sentences with the precondition front-loaded and the return value appended. No redundant or wasted text.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key precondition and summarizes the return values, and the schema fully documents parameters. It is nearly complete, with only minor gaps such as whether updates are partial or full-replacement.

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 all six parameters (id, name, steps, version, parameters, description) are already documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Update an existing protocol template') with the added precondition of draft status. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like create_protocol, fork_protocol, or validate_protocol.

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 parenthetical '(must be in draft status)' gives a real precondition for use, which is valuable guidance. However, it offers no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as publish_protocol or create_protocol for non-draft cases.

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