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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the saved state becomes a version in a tree and the user continues working on a fresh copy, which tells the agent the original is preserved. It omits naming behavior and what happens on repeat saves with the same name.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the use condition and followed by the outcome. No filler, nothing redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return/effect story, and it does state that a fresh copy is created. However it is silent on how the version is named (the unexplained 'note' parameter) and on behavior for duplicate names, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 50%: the schema itself documents 'formula' (id from list_formulas or exact name), while 'note' (max 120 chars) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — notably it never explains how the version gets its name — so it does not compensate for the gap.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource — keeping the current state of a formula as a named version in its evolution tree — plus the resulting side effect (editing continues on a fresh copy). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like branch_version or rename_version, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

"Use this when the user wants to keep the current state... and carry on editing" is an explicit use trigger tied to user intent, which is stronger than most definitions. It offers no when-not conditions and names no alternative (e.g. branch_version), so it stops short of a 5.

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