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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds meaning the annotations cannot: '(no AI)' means content is overwritten rather than regenerated, the carousel separator rule prevents a real data-loss failure mode ('all the text lands on one slide'), and the return url is described. It doesn't explicitly describe overwrite semantics for omitted fields, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the minimum-input rule, then the carousel trap, then exclusions and return value. Dense but every clause is actionable; the trailing API reference URL is mild padding but harmless.

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 12-param mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers field list, minimum input, formatting constraints, scope exclusions, and the return value. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it enumerates the 10 editable field names and adds critical value the schema lacks: the required '\n\n---\n\n' separator and per-slide ordering for carousel bodies. brandId and contentId are not described, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 (edit) plus resource and scope (a content card's editorial fields) and adds the '(no AI)' qualifier, which separates it from the generate_* and refine_content siblings. The explicit 'Does NOT change the board column, order, or date' further distinguishes it from move_content, reorder_contents, and schedule_content.

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 a clear precondition ('provide at least one of...') and negative guidance that this tool must not be used for column/order/date changes, implicitly routing those to the move/reorder/schedule siblings. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so it falls just below a 5.

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