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

Adds substantial context beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations: the default dry-run preview, the confirm-gate tied to owner approval, the fact that it is free, and the reconciliation procedure for a lost write reply. This is exactly the behavioral detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and gated by the confirm/preview rule, then the reconciliation caveat. Every sentence earns its place, though the requirement list is packed tightly enough to read slightly dense.

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 an 11-param destructive mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the critical semantics (confirm gate, alt_text/decorative, if_unchanged, recovery). Minor gaps remain around crop/focal_point behavior, but the essentials an agent needs to invoke correctly are present.

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 high (82%) so the schema already documents most params, but the description adds semantics: asset_id is an owned Library image resolved by the server, alt_text is required unless decorative:true, and if_unchanged must be the exact displayed revision. It does not mention crop/focal_point, but those are schema-documented.

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+resource pair (place/remove a Library image in a renderer section and role) with the exact discriminator (remove:true). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like soclo_page_design_save or soclo_library_update 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?

Gives clear context: preview by default, pass confirm:true only after owner approval, and reconcile lost writes with soclo_page_get and soclo_page_versions before retrying. Names concrete alternatives for the recovery path, though it doesn't contrast against other image-editing siblings.

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