update_grc_indicator

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally; the description adds a genuine operational precondition (WRITE_ENABLED=true) and explains a real failure mode behind the excluded fields. It stops short of describing partial-update semantics or what a failed update returns, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and identifier, then the constraints; no filler sentences. The second sentence is long and parenthetical-ish, but each clause carries actionable information.

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 a two-parameter mutation tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description supplies the write gate, the excluded-field rationale, and the escape hatch. Only success/failure behavior and partial-update semantics are left implicit, which is minor here.

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 coverage is 100% and the fields object already lists every allowed field, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by explaining why entity/item are absent from the allowed set, which preempts an agent attempting an unsupported mutation.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+identifier ("Update a GRC Indicator by sys_id"), which cleanly places it against create_grc_indicator, get_grc_indicator and list_grc_indicators. It also enumerates what is deliberately out of scope, so the agent knows exactly what this tool operates on.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use it (changing entity/item) and gives the concrete alternative — recreate the Indicator — along with the reason (reproducing the create-time validation failure). That is a when/when-not/alternative triad in two sentences.

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