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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and usefully discloses the unsent-request precondition and partial-update behavior. It still omits permission requirements, side effects, error behavior, and whether changes affect matching or downstream state, so it is only minimally adequate for a mutation tool.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and eligibility condition. The partial-update rule follows immediately and no wording is wasted.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, eligibility, mutable fields, and partial-update semantics. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, though more detail on request_id and mutation side effects would improve completeness given there are no annotations.

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 low at 17%, so the description should compensate more. It lists the mutable fields and states that only passed fields change, which is valuable, but it does not clarify request_id's role, the address object's structure, or category constraints beyond what the schema already shows.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — changing a request — and narrows scope to requests not yet sent. It enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent can distinguish this from creating, sending, or viewing requests without opening another 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?

The phrase 'a request you have not sent yet' gives a clear precondition and implicitly excludes sent requests. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as sending, withdrawing, or using a non-homeowner request-update tool when the request has already been sent.

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