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

Annotations already flag this as non-read-only, idempotent, non-open-world, and destructive. The description adds a valuable behavioral constraint not captured by the schema alone: the curator note is the curator's own voice and should never be AI-rewritten.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and editable fields. The note-preservation warning is useful and does not add filler.

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?

Given the fully described schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete for a mutation tool. It could mention partial-update behavior, such as whether omitted fields remain unchanged, but the schema covers clearing and required identifiers.

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 schema already defines each parameter, including empty-string clearing behavior. The description enumerates the editable fields and adds nuance about preserving note voice, but baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the main parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ("Edit") and names the exact resource ("one pick") plus the editable fields: title, curator note, URL, and author. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling creation and list-management tools.

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?

It gives a clear context for use: editing one pick's metadata fields. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as add_item or update_list, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can infer when this tool applies.

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