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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds the crucial detail of WHAT is destroyed: the whole description is replaced, not merged. It also states the return payload (stored description plus shown flag). Lacks only peripheral context like permission requirements, which is minor for a single-field setter.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the core set/clear behavior is front-loaded, followed by the replacement caveat and the return contract. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 simple two-parameter setter with a documented output schema, the definition covers purpose, both modes, replacement semantics, and the read-before-write workflow. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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% and the schema already documents empty-string clearing, inline Markdown support, and multi-line text, so the description largely restates it. The only added nuance is that formatting is normalized on save ('with the formatting that was kept'), which is marginal.

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 (set/clear), resource (page/view description), and key identifier (`viewId`) in the first clause. An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like `xtiles_update_page`, `xtiles_set_page_layout`, or `xtiles_patch_view_content`.

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?

Explicitly covers both operation modes (non-empty to set/show, empty string to clear/hide) and names the alternative workflow for partial edits: read the current text with `xtiles_get_view_content`, then send the full new text. The condition that selects each path is unambiguous.

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