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

Annotations already declare the risky profile (destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real context: zero credit cost, preview-vs-commit semantics, immediate live-site visibility, and a recovery procedure for lost write replies. It stops short of detailing rollback or partial-failure behavior.

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-loads the action first, then the confirm/revision protocol, cost, and reconciliation. Every clause carries operational information, though the ordering intermixes cost, revision prerequisite and confirmation semantics rather than grouping prerequisites together.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: prerequisite revision, preview/confirm gate, approval condition, live-effect timing, and failure reconciliation. Return values need not be explained since the preview/commit behavior is stated.

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 3 is the baseline. The description still adds value by tying hidden_from_nav to navigation visibility and by explaining that if_unchanged must come from the displayed revision in soclo_page_pages, which goes beyond the raw field description.

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 pair (hide/show) on a specific resource (one selected page in the site navigation) and names the exact mechanism parameter (hidden_from_nav). An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like soclo_page_reorder, soclo_page_rename or soclo_page_save.

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 explicit when/when-not rules: without confirm:true it is a preview only, and confirm:true is passed only after the owner approves the exact change. It also names the sibling sources (soclo_page_pages for if_unchanged) and the reconciliation path after a lost write reply.

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