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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: archiving is reversible ('false brings it back') and removes the sheet from the gallery, which is exactly the kind of side-effect detail annotations cannot express. It does not clarify which specific edits are considered destructive.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: purpose first, then the archive behavior, then the sibling exclusion and id provenance. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, required-id source, the tricky archived flag, and sibling routing. It does not discuss authorization requirements (covered by the workspace parameter description in the schema) or what changes are irreversible, leaving a small gap.

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 67%, with the undocumented parameter being 'archived' — and the description compensates precisely there, explaining true/false semantics and the gallery removal effect. It also enumerates the other editable fields, adding marginal meaning over the already well-documented visibility enum and workspace slug.

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?

Names a specific verb (edits) plus the exact editable fields (title, description, visibility, archived) on a specific resource (a Napkin sheet), and explicitly separates itself from napkin_sheets_set_cells. An agent can distinguish this tool from the ~55 siblings without opening a 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?

States the negative case clearly ('Cells are edited with napkin_sheets_set_cells, not here') and gives the source of required input ('Sheet ids come from napkin_sheets_list'). It also frames archived=false as the recovery path, which tells the agent when to reach for this tool; it stops short of spelling out when updating title vs visibility is appropriate.

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