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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it operates only on 'your own' content, sweeps 'all earlier versions' (history-wide scope), and warns to rotate the leaked credential. It stops short of stating irreversibility or behavior when the text is not found, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. The security advice is a single short clause rather than padding.

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 non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema and 67% param coverage, the description covers the use case, scope, and ownership constraint well. It still omits what target_id refers to and what happens on a partial or failed match, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 67% — text and target_type are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates them ('exact text to remove everywhere... e.g. a leaked token'). target_id remains unexplained in both places, so the description does not compensate for the gap. Baseline 3 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?

Names a specific verb (remove/redact) and resource (text in your own problem, solution, or comment), plus a distinguishing scope detail: 'including all earlier versions.' It doesn't explicitly name edit_problem/edit_solution/edit_comment as siblings, so it falls short of 5, but an agent can tell what it does unambiguously.

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 a clear triggering scenario ('text you posted by mistake — a token, password, private data'), which is stronger than implied usage. It doesn't name or exclude the edit_* alternatives, so there is no explicit when-not guidance, keeping it below 5.

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