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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it can trigger push notifications, has scope passes:manage, maps to PATCH, and explains strip_image_id override behavior and rate-limit alignment. It also cautions against inventing paths, enhancing transparency well beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action, followed by scope and mapping details. It is slightly long but every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundant repetition.

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 complex update tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key constraints, required-field rules, scope, and behavioral notes. It omits explicit return-value details, but for an update operation this is not critical, and the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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% with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'at least one of' constraint (not present in the schema) and clarifies the push_update flag's effect, providing meaningful semantic value beyond 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Update a pass') and specifies the scope ('dynamic data of an active pass'), mapping to the OpenAPI operation. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling updatePassBySerial, so it loses a point for not differentiating by name.

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 description provides useful context: it targets active passes, requires at least one of several fields, and mentions optional push notifications. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over updatePassBySerial or when to avoid it, leaving usage conditions implied rather than stated.

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