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

With annotations that are entirely false and uninformative, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals wholesale replacement, deletion of omitted entries, whole-set validation with atomic failure, the invalidity of connection_id, and that already-stamped toolboxes remain untouched. This is rich, actionable 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?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place. The critical wholesale-replace semantics are front-loaded, concrete examples illustrate intent, and no sentence is redundant with the schema or title.

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 2-parameter tool with nested entry objects and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: replacement behavior, validation workflow, failure atomicity, side effects on toolboxes, and the return shape. An agent can correctly invoke it without needing additional clarification.

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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters, the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it specifies that proxy entries require connector_slug + tool_name, explicitly forbids connection_id, marks frozen_params and enabled as optional, and explains that the entries array is a complete replacement list. These are essential semantics not inferable from the schema alone.

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 and resource: 'Replace a template’s entries', then immediately differentiates itself from template.update by noting that name and description are untouched. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from related siblings such as template.update and toolbox.set_entries.

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 gives explicit operational guidance: to 'add the Slack tool', read template.get, resend existing entries, and append the new one. It also tells the caller to validate against connection.list_tools before sending, and routes name/description changes to template.update. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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