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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the crucial destructive semantic that 'owners replaces every owner it has now, so include the ones that stay', the partial-update contract ('every parameter left out keeps the value the record has now'), the 100% share-sum constraint, and that the response is the changed property. This is exactly the kind of mutation context annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

Single front-loaded block that leads with the purpose and changeable fields, then constraints and prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place, but the dense run-on packing of replacement semantics, confirmation, module and permission gating slightly hurts scanability.

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 tool with no output schema, it covers the full picture: partial-update behaviour, owner replacement, share arithmetic, confirmation workflow, permission/module requirements, and the return value ('the changed property'). Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express on its own: omitted fields retain current values and owners is a full replacement. That materially changes how an agent constructs the call, though the per-field detail is otherwise duplicated from the schema.

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 ('Changes a rental property, by its id from list_properties') and enumerates exactly which fields change: label, address, owners/shares, active status. This cleanly separates it from create_property and update_tenancy without the agent needing to open a schema.

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 concrete preconditions and workflow: 'Read the record first, and confirm the change with the person', plus module and organisation-permission gating with list_organisations cited as the check. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g. create_property for new records), so it is strong context rather than full alternative routing.

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