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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds critical context beyond them: a saved design goes live immediately on a live site, changes are reversible through soclo_page_versions, cost is zero AI charge, and lost replies require reconciliation. This is substantive behavioral disclosure.

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 purpose, then structured as 'THREE RULES THAT BITE.' Dense but each rule carries operational consequences; slightly long with some redundancy against the schema, but justified given the tool's destructive, site-wide impact.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the live-effect risk, reversibility, page-targeting default, and recovery workflow. An agent has everything needed to call it safely without further context.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds coordination semantics: theme_variant is the whole-site look, page_id defaults to home, and combining the two is refused. These consequences add meaning beyond the field-level constraints, though some overlap remains with the schema text.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Apply a design patch YOU write (theme_variant and/or design fields)' to a page design. It explicitly distinguishes its scope from siblings (soclo_page_get, soclo_page_versions) and clarifies the free/verbatim nature of the operation.

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?

Explicit when/when-not guidance: theme_variant alone for a look change vs design-only for a child-page change, page_id required or home page is affected, and reconciliation via soclo_page_get/soclo_page_versions for lost replies. Alternatives and conditions are named, not inferred.

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