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

Goes well past the annotations: it explains that the write happens as a new version, that History logs it as `mcp: <note>` and can roll it back, that products/translations/other settings are preserved, and that editing requires an appropriately scoped MCP key. The rollback detail importantly qualifies the destructiveHint=true annotation by showing the change is recoverable.

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 core action, and every clause (versioning, live-paywall refusal, auth, preserved settings) carries information an agent needs. The parenthetical version-history detail sits mid-sentence and the final clause is somewhat tacked on, so structure is good rather than exemplary.

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, non-open-world mutation with annotations present and 3 fully documented parameters, the description covers preconditions, side effects, reversibility and what is preserved. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description says nothing about what the call returns (e.g. version id or updated doc reference).

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 real meaning: `doc` is a whole-document replacement rather than a patch, and `note` surfaces visibly in History as `mcp: <note>`, which explains why the field matters. `id` semantics (must be a draft) are also reinforced.

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 ('Replaces a draft paywall's document') with the key qualifier that only DRAFT paywalls are accepted. It is clear what gets written, but it never names the closest sibling (editor_set_doc) or explains how it differs from that tool, so differentiation is only implicit via the draft/version wording.

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?

'Refused for a live paywall — copy it in the dashboard first' gives an explicit when-not condition plus the workaround, and 'Needs an MCP key that can edit' states the prerequisite. What is missing is any pointer to alternatives (e.g. editor_set_doc, validate_paywall_doc) for the cases this tool does not cover.

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