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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is established by structured data. The description adds only the vague constraint 'schema-bound public API fields' and does not clarify partial update semantics, nulling behavior, or side effects. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 one short sentence and front-loads the core action. It is efficient, though 'schema-bound public API fields' is jargon that could be clearer without adding much length.

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 an update tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and destructive/idempotent annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to identify the person, which fields are updatable, what nulls mean, or how idempotency works.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it does not. Property names and types are somewhat self-explanatory, yet the description adds no detail about person_id, idempotency_key, request_id, null values, or how fields interact.

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 action and resource: 'Update one person.' This distinguishes it from sibling people tools like create, list, and read. However, 'schema-bound public API fields' is vague and does not explain what those fields are or how the update behaves.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as people_create, people_read, or people_list. The verb 'Update' implies an existing person, but no explicit usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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