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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: replacing text leaves the downloadable original intact, and image entries have no text to replace. It does not state whether omitted fields are preserved or what happens to the previous value, but the added context is substantive.

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 short sentences, zero padding, and the primary action is stated first with the caveat about the downloadable original following immediately. Every clause carries 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 simple 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the two editable fields and a key side-effect. The gap is the unexplained resourceId and no statement about partial updates (what happens when only title or only text is supplied).

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 only 33% — only 'text' is documented, while 'title' and 'resourceId' have no schema descriptions. The description maps its two sentences onto title (rename) and text (replace), which partially compensates, but 'resourceId' is never explained, leaving ambiguity about whether it identifies the entry or the project.

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 specific verbs and the resource: rename a context entry's title or replace the text the agent reads. An agent can tell this apart from websiteKnowledge_create and websiteKnowledge_read. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely named siblings websiteKnowledge_project_edit and websiteKnowledge_agentNotes_edit.

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 description explains what changes but gives no guidance on when to choose this over websiteKnowledge_create, websiteKnowledge_project_edit, or websiteKnowledge_agentNotes_edit. There are no prerequisites or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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