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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the most important side effect — that edits invalidate the counterparty's prior acceptance and require re-acceptance. It omits other behavioral facts an agent needs: that edits are only legal before funding, that the deal token authorizes the change, whether edits overwrite or merge existing values, and whether a notification is sent to the other side.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the capability set is front-loaded and the consequence sentence follows immediately. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 9-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is thin — it never mentions the required deal_id/token authorization, the pre-funding restriction, partial-update semantics, or what the tool returns. The re-acceptance note is valuable but not enough to make the definition self-sufficient.

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?

With only 22% schema description coverage across 9 parameters, the description partially compensates by naming the editable concepts (title, terms, price, fee split, bond, deadlines, delivery check), mapping to roughly seven of the properties. However, it adds no semantics beyond the names — "deadlines" ambiguously covers both delivery_days and inspection_hours, and it never clarifies units, accepted formats, or whether the edit is partial vs. full replacement.

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 opens with a specific verb ("Edit") and enumerates the exact mutable fields — title, terms, price, fee split, bond, deadlines, delivery check — which clearly separates it from siblings like mm_accept_terms or mm_create_deal. The one caveat is that the crucial "before funding" scope restriction lives only in the title, not in the description itself.

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 other side must accept again" implies the post-edit re-acceptance flow and hints that this is a pre-agreement operation, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., mm_accept_terms, mm_cancel_deal) for adjacent needs. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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