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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses key constraints: only quantity, visit, and notes can be changed, item/price changes require remove+add, and field workers are limited to their own entries. It does not cover validation behavior, partial-update semantics, or error conditions, but it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 sentences with no waste. The main operation is front-loaded, the workaround is clearly secondary, and the permission constraint closes the description efficiently.

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 output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. The description covers the update scope and an authorization constraint, but it leaves some gaps around parameter semantics and update behavior for a mutation tool with 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?

The description names the mutable fields (quantity, visit, notes), which helps map the operation, but schema description coverage is only 25%. It does not explain material_id, visit_id, notes length limits, null semantics, or other parameter details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('recorded material') and clearly limits the operation to quantity, visit, or notes. It also distinguishes this tool from add/remove workflows by explaining that different items or prices must be removed and re-added.

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?

It states exactly when to use this tool, when not to use it ('anything else'), and what to do instead ('remove it and add it again'). It also gives an authorization-related usage constraint: field workers may change only materials they entered.

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