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

Given annotations already mark the operation as mutating, non-destructive, and idempotent, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it optionally triggers push notifications to registered devices, requires an active pass, and warns about the same API/billing/rate limits. It does not contradict 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 compact and well-organized, front-loading the core behavior, then covering the required-field condition, scope, operation mapping, and operational guardrails. Each sentence adds actionable information without redundancy.

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 nine-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the combination of schema and description is largely sufficient to invoke it correctly: it covers path, scope, the at-least-one constraint, push behavior, and API limits. It stops short of explaining response shape or error cases, but those are not essential for selection and 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?

All parameters already have descriptive schema text, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the critical cross-field constraint that at least one of data, expires_at, locations, relevant_date, or max_distance must be provided, and clarifies that id is the path parameter in the PATCH URL.

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 'Updates the dynamic data of an active pass,' and grounds it in a concrete operation path (PATCH /manage-passes/{id}). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like updatePassBySerial or generatePass, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 call context, including that the pass must be active, that at least one update field is required, and the required scope (passes:manage). It never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer another variant, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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