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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation risk profile is carried by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that criteria is 'set-replace' rather than merged — but doesn't clarify that omitted fields are left unchanged (vs. cleared) or what the response looks like.

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, front-loaded with the action and mutable fields, followed by the single most important disambiguation. No filler and nothing buried.

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 4-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus rich schema covers the essential decisions. The remaining gap is patch semantics — whether omitted fields are preserved and whether clearing a field is possible — which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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?

The schema's criteria description is already extremely rich (types, units, failure semantics), but it does not state that the array replaces existing criteria; the description supplies that replace-vs-merge meaning. Status enum values are repeated from the schema, and name/qualityGateId get no added semantics, so it's good rather than exhaustive.

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 ('Patch') and resource ('a quality gate') plus the exact mutable fields (name, criteria, status). An agent can immediately separate it from create_quality_gate, delete_quality_gate, and run_quality_gate_check.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (stride.run_quality_gate_check) and the condition that selects it: recomputing the verdict from live metrics instead of setting status manually. That is the key routing decision for this tool family and it is stated directly.

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