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

Annotations declare destructive=true and idempotent=false, and the description goes well beyond them: changes are saved to the draft, revision history retains the old copy (softening the destructive hint), {{variables}} are never touched, and narration replacement invalidates existing voiceover clips. Required scopes (demos:read, demos:write) are disclosed, which annotations cannot express.

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 action and its scope, then alternatives and modifiers, then requirements — a sensible order. However, it is one very long semicolon-chained sentence that is dense to parse; splitting the scope enumeration from the modifier definitions would read better without losing content.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the prerequisites (scopes), the side effects (draft save, revision history, narration clips), the preview path, and the exclusions. The dryRun sentence even hints at the return shape (counts and listed locations). Nothing material 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 only 43%, but the description compensates by defining all four undocumented booleans in prose: matchCase (case-insensitive by default), wholeWord (skips matches inside longer words), dryRun (counts and lists only), and includeNarration (plus its downstream consequence). Only find/replace semantics are left implicit, which the opening sentence adequately implies.

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+resource (replace a word/phrase across a demo's copy) and immediately enumerates the exact surfaces covered: guided steps, hotspots, description, personalization defaults, guide overrides, narration. An agent can distinguish this from rewrite_copy, update_content, or update_demo purely from this sentence.

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 names the two boundaries: the demo title belongs to update_demo, and on-screen text in screenshots/HTML pages is out of scope (use the editor's Find & replace). It also names the prerequisite follow-up (regenerate voiceovers after narration replacement) and the dryRun preview path, so the agent knows both when to use it and what to do next.

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