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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes beyond them by explaining what the destruction actually is: archived=true removes the sheet from the gallery and false restores it, framing it as a reversible recovery move. It does not disclose permission/authorization requirements or whether omitting a field leaves it unchanged.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the editable field list, followed by the sibling exclusion and id source. The parenthetical on archived is the only long clause and it earns its space by defining the destructive behavior.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the definition covers intent, editable fields, sibling boundaries, and id sourcing. The one real gap is partial-update semantics: it never says whether passing only title preserves the other fields, which matters for a four-optional-field update.

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%, and the description compensates for the two bare parameters by explaining archived's true/false semantics, which the schema leaves undocumented. title and description are only named, not elaborated, but their names are self-explanatory against the schema's maxLength constraints.

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 (a sheet's details) and enumerates the exact editable fields: title, description, visibility, archived. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling napkin_sheets_set_cells by explicitly stating cells are edited there, not here.

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?

Names the sibling alternative for cell edits ('Cells are edited with napkin_sheets_set_cells, not here') and the id source ('Sheet ids come from napkin_sheets_list'), which prevents the most likely misuse. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over napkin_sheets_create, though the field list makes that mostly self-evident.

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