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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing permissions ('Requires editor'), validation behavior ('rejects or normalizes invalid combinations and reports applied_repairs'), side effects ('Editing inside $defs affects every usage site'), restrictions ('Removing an identity-source member is refused'), and state implications ('remain working-copy edits until publish_schema'). Annotations only indicate destructiveHint=true; the description adds rich behavioral context.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core action, then covers permissions, validation, side effects, restrictions, rename behavior, and routing to siblings. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 params, mutation, side effects, restrictions) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: permissions, validation, side effects, restrictions, alternatives, and a pointer to detailed rules. Nothing critical is missing.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaningful value by clarifying that null clears entries in flags, pointing to the external reference for path/flag/rename rules, and noting that ref clears type and type clears $ref. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Edit or remove'), a resource ('one property by path'), and the key behavior (without replacing the full schema). It also distinguishes itself from siblings add_schema_property and move_schema_property, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 names when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'For additions or relocation use add_schema_property or move_schema_property.' It also clarifies that database-linked schemas remain working-copy edits until publish_schema, giving clear context on when this is appropriate.

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