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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true / readOnly=false, and the description meaningfully adds to that: it explains the replace-wholesale vs headerFields-merge semantics, the need to preserve human-authored content, and the needs_confirmation → approvalId round-trip. Some of the replace language overlaps the schema, but the merge/confirmation behavior is extra context the annotations don't carry.

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 verb and target, then packed with routing, prerequisite, and merge/confirmation guidance in which every sentence earns its place — no filler or restated schema text.

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 9-parameter destructive edit with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the risky behaviors an agent needs (field replacement vs merge, approval gating, id provenance, preservation of human content), leaving nothing critical to inference.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes further by contrasting replace semantics (title/body/tags) against merge semantics for headerFields with a concrete example ('set the owner' leaves status alone) and by explaining where pageId values originate.

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 (Edits) and resource (an existing page), enumerates the editable fields, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the create path ('instead of creating a duplicate'). An agent can separate it from compass_pages_create and compass_pages_get without opening any 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 when-to-use (fixing mistakes/extra value from extractions rather than duplicating), prerequisites (fetch with compass_pages_get first, page ids from compass_pages_list), and the confirmation workflow to follow when needs_confirmation is returned.

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