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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds almost nothing beyond the action itself: it doesn't say what the edit operates on, whether it persists changes, or how it differs from the deterministic sibling tools.

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 lines with no padding, and the core action is front-loaded. The leading "Custom edit" line is mildly redundant with the title, but overall it's tight and earns most of its space.

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 3-parameter mutation-style tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is too thin. It leaves the agent without enough to call it confidently alongside its near-duplicate transform siblings.

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 instruction is documented in the schema). The description does not compensate for the undocumented content and contentGroupId parameters, so the agent gets no plain-language help on what to pass or why.

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+resource: apply a free-form natural-language edit to existing copy. The word "free-form" implicitly distinguishes it from the fixed-transform siblings (adjustTone, makeConcise, proofread), though it never names them 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?

No when-to-use guidance and no routing versus the many sibling transform tools. It does not tell the agent when to pick customEdit over adjustTone, makeConcise, or proofread, which is the exact ambiguity this tool sits in.

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