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

The annotations already declare destructive=true, non-idempotent, and write behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation replaces a block config and recommends previewing first, but does not explain what is lost, whether replacement is full or merge, or what happens to omitted fields.

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?

The definition is extremely short and front-loaded: action first, safety guidance second. There is no wasted wording.

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 config replacement, the description covers the core action and a preview workflow, while annotations cover the danger level. Still, it leaves the config structure and replacement semantics underspecified, which matters because the config parameter itself is only vaguely documented.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond indicating that a single block config is replaced.

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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Replace one block config.' This distinguishes it from add/remove block siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

'Preview first' gives a useful prerequisite and implies the preview sibling should be used beforehand. However, it does not explain when to choose this over add/remove or what conditions require replacement versus another update path.

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