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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint true, idempotentHint true, openWorldHint false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: partial-update semantics and the immutability of an existing file's url. It does not explain what a destructive edit does to existing values beyond the fields passed, but the patch contract largely covers that.

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; the mutation model is front-loaded and the constraint/workaround follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the mutation model, referential source for resourceId, and the key constraint. Return shape is unspecified, but the absence of an output schema and the presence of annotations make that a minor gap.

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 semantics beyond the schema: only passed fields mutate, and url is not updatable for files. That is real parameter-level guidance the schema alone does not convey.

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 (Change) and resource (a deliverable / dm_resource) and clarifies what 'deliverable' means by tying resourceId to list_dm_resources. The added rule about url immutability distinguishes it from create_dm_resource and delete_dm_resource, which are named as the workaround.

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?

"only what you pass changes" gives the patch contract explicitly, and "A file's url cannot be changed: delete it and create a new one" is an explicit when-not with the alternative tools named. Nothing is left for the agent to infer about 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.