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

Goes well beyond the annotations by naming required scopes (demos:read, demos:write), stating it never changes or duplicates existing hotspots, and noting the player-side effect (added links are quiet, no pulse) and grouping. It clarifies the mutation lands as one draft change undoable from version history, consistent with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true.

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?

Purpose and the dry-run rule are front-loaded, and the sentences about player behavior and safety are load-bearing. The long first sentence is dense and slightly nested with parentheticals, mildly taxing to parse, but there is no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (links/screens/groups, suggestions with key and why). Combined with permissions, undo semantics, non-destructiveness, and the automatic-linking context, an agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the dry-run/inspect/apply cycle for apply, that accept takes suggestion keys from a prior apply:false run, and it sketches the response shape (links across screens per control in groups, suggestions each with key and why). It stops short of enumerating the demoId format, which the schema already covers.

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 action (auto-linking navigation controls to the screens they lead to) on a specific resource (a clickable demo's sidebar items, tabs and menu links). The mechanics — matching by link address or by identity with a recorded click — make the effect unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like update_scene or add_step, which keeps it at 4.

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 an explicit two-step workflow: run with apply: false first to inspect what it would add and the weaker suggestions, then apply: true optionally with accept keys. It also states when to reach for it: new recordings are linked automatically, so use this for demos recorded before or after adding screens.

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