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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: an ownership requirement ('Owner-only update') and a URL constraint ('public URLs you control'). It still never explains what the destructive behavior actually is (does pausing stop monitoring? lose state?), which is the main thing the destructiveHint raises.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the ownership constraint leads and the parameter guidance follows. Slightly clipped to the point of under-specification, but structurally efficient.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for an 8-parameter destructive mutation with zero schema coverage the description is too thin: most configuration parameters and the nature of the destructive change are unaddressed.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the semantics of 'paused' (false resumes) and constrains endpoint_url/webhook_url, but leaves checks_config, heartbeat_enabled, check_interval_sec, agent_id and api_key entirely unexplained.

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 verb 'update' and the resource implied by the name (agent health) are present, but the description never says what an agent-health update actually configures or changes. Siblings like agent_health_status, agent_health_heartbeat, and delete_agent_health are not differentiated, so the scope must be inferred from the schema.

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?

'Pause when retiring/testing; resume with paused=false' gives real conditional guidance for the paused parameter. However, there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as delete_agent_health or register_agent_health, so usage is only implied.

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