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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond them: the old version cannot be restored, the user should confirm first, in-flight requests are unaffected, PDF vs. Google Doc handling differs, and a Doc template reflects live Google Docs content. These are material consequences an agent could not infer from the annotation flags.

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?

Six sentences is long, but the three supported operations are front-loaded and nearly every sentence carries a distinct constraint (irreversibility, confirmation, in-flight requests, PDF limitation, Doc liveness). Only the example sentence could be trimmed without loss.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, mode limitations, prerequisite read, and post-write side effects. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and how to warn the user.

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 75% and already documents name, markdown, and google_doc_url. The description adds real semantics on top: markdown must be the whole new text using the same field tokens as send_for_signature, and the mode-specific mapping (rename vs. replace text vs. repoint Doc) clarifies when each parameter applies.

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?

Opens with three specific verb+resource operations (rename a template, replace markdown text, repoint a Google Doc template), immediately distinguishing it from get_template, list_templates, and delete_template. The title alone would be ambiguous, but the description makes the scope of mutation explicit.

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 states when to use it ('only when the user asks to change the template itself') with a concrete NDA example, names the prerequisite read step (get_template), and gives exclusions: requests already sent do not change, PDF templates can only be renamed. This is textbook when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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