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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining mutation behavior. It adds value by disclosing that different fields are gated by different roles and that customPrompt can be nulled to clear guidance. It does not contradict the annotations: 'update' aligns with readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and scope, the second states the role constraints. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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 5-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers what fields are updatable and who is authorized to update each, which is the key correctness risk. It omits the return value and error behavior for unauthorized attempts, but those are secondary for a tool whose main ambiguity is permission boundaries.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns more by mapping the plain-language field names ('guidance', 'visibility', 'completion status') to the actual parameters (customPrompt, visibility, status). This bridges the gap between user intent and schema vocabulary, and the null-to-clear guidance semantics in the schema is reinforced by the description's use of 'guidance'.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Update a Clarity process') and enumerates exactly which fields can be changed: name, guidance, visibility, and completion status. This maps cleanly to the schema parameters and gives an agent enough detail to distinguish it from nearby siblings like updateClarityGuidance or updateClarityProcessSharing, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 second sentence gives concrete role-based usage context: Team Builders can edit names and guidance, only the creator or a team manager can change visibility, and completion requires a manager role. This tells an agent when the tool is usable for a given caller, but it stops short of naming alternative tools to prefer for single-field updates.

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