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

Goes well beyond the annotations: describes partial-merge semantics ('Only supplied fields change; all other settings are preserved'), that empty strings clear wording, and that a current revision is required (optimistic concurrency). These are non-obvious behaviors an agent must know before mutating.

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?

Five short clauses, front-loaded with the action and scope, then merge semantics, clearing semantics, and prerequisites. No filler; every sentence carries actionable 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and mutation behavior is well covered. Only testId's role and format go unexplained, leaving a minor hole for a 6-parameter 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load, and it does for blockId, task/scenario/stopCondition, and expectedRevision ('Requires current revision'). testId is left unexplained, which is the only gap among six parameters.

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 and resource ('Edit task/scenario/stopCondition wording by blockId') and scopes it to wording fields. It differentiates from siblings explicitly by naming find_operations for experience/credential changes and implying launch_test is out of scope with 'No launch'.

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: use this for wording edits, use find_operations for experience/credential changes, and it does not launch. No explicit when-not clause covering other edit paths (e.g. edit_draft_advanced), but the routing guidance is concrete.

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