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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description still adds useful scope boundaries (enhanced workspaces only, not legacy) and the fact that authoring and delivery surfaces are split. It does not itself flag that publish/unpublish changes what site visitors see or that delete requires an unpublished variant first, though those details do appear in the parameter schemas.

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, front-loaded with purpose then routing, with zero filler. The long capability enumeration partially restates the operation enum already in the schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 21-operation, 11-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers scope, sibling routing, and the enhanced-vs-legacy split. Workflow preconditions (variant-level edits, unpublish before delete, approval gating) are documented in the schema rather than the description, so the description alone is not fully self-sufficient but nothing critical is absent from the definition as a whole.

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% and the parameter descriptions are unusually detailed (variantId lifecycle, contentKeyOrId body placement, body field caveats). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, so the baseline of 3 applies when structured fields carry the load.

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 set and resource (author/manage Salesforce CMS content in enhanced CMS workspaces) and enumerates the concrete capabilities: content and variants, publish/unpublish, taxonomy terms, spaces, folders, channels. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings, cms_delivery for published-channel reads and connect_rest for uncovered CMS resources, so an agent can pick it without opening the 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?

Gives explicit routing conditions: use cms_delivery to read content already published to a channel or Experience Cloud site, use connect_rest for digital asset management providers, search indexing, folder sharing, and legacy CMS workspaces. The exclusions cover exactly the areas an agent might wrongly assume this tool handles.

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