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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with the crucial replacement semantics: 'lo que no incluyas se pierde' — anything omitted from the new manual is lost. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before calling a destructive full-overwrite, and it adds detail the annotations cannot express.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the destructive warning is front-loaded at the end of the first sentence and the recommended read step follows immediately. Every clause carries operational information.

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 destructive two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers format, size, consumers, prerequisite read, and data-loss behavior. The only gap is that it does not indicate what the tool returns or how to confirm a successful replacement.

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%: brand_id is documented in the schema (including the disambiguation rule via list_brands), but the manual property has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that manual is the full replacement Markdown content consumed by bots, though the 60,000-character limit it cites merely restates the schema's maxLength.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Reemplaza el Manual de la marca'), names the format and size limit (Markdown, up to 60,000 characters), and states who consumes it (comment and message bots). It clearly distinguishes this write tool from the read sibling get_brand_manual, which it names explicitly.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition ('Lee antes el actual con get_brand_manual'), a required user-facing step ('muestra al usuario el cambio'), and a warning about consequences. The alternative read tool is named, so the agent knows exactly which sibling to call first.

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