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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read, destructive operation, so the description is not required to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the operation is owner-only, explaining pause/resume semantics, and requiring public URLs under the caller's control. This helps an agent understand permissions and deployment constraints that annotations do not convey.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The most important constraint ('Owner-only update') is front-loaded, and each sentence adds operational value: ownership, pause/resume usage, and URL requirements. It is an ideal size for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given seven parameters, an output schema, and destructive annotations, the description covers the main update scenarios but leaves heartbeat-related parameters unexplained and does not state whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset. The output schema and annotations reduce the burden, but an agent still lacks enough context to confidently use all optional fields.

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 must compensate. It meaningfully clarifies paused, endpoint_url, and webhook_url, including the public-URL requirement and pause/resume behavior. However, it does not address heartbeat_enabled or check_interval_sec, leaving the agent to infer those from parameter names alone, so coverage is incomplete but not absent.

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 clearly identifies an owner-only update operation on agent health, and gives concrete examples of what can be changed: pause/resume and endpoint/webhook URLs. It does not explicitly say 'update agent health configuration', but the name plus these examples make the resource and action clear enough to distinguish from tools like register_agent_health or delete_agent_health.

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 clear context for when to use the update: pause when retiring/testing and resume with paused=false. It also gives a critical precondition: endpoint and webhook must be public URLs you control. It does not mention alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use cases, but the owner-only and update-specific instructions are sufficient for most selection decisions.

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