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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuinely new behavior: it creates a NEW proposal rather than editing in place ('新しいプリント案を作り'), and the original link retains its original contents. That immutability guarantee is not derivable from the annotations.

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, no padding, and the primary effect (new draft created) is front-loaded before the secondary guarantee (original link unchanged). Every clause earns its place.

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 return-value burden and does so: it names the new question list and the confirmation link. Combined with the immutability note and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, and the schema itself documents index (0-based, template/blank cells not replaceable), proposalId format, and the replacement ref structure. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: replacing one question in a worksheet draft with another using the same character, and producing a new draft. It also clarifies the output (new question list + confirmation link) and that the original link is untouched, which is a strong differentiator against find_replacement_questions. It stops short of naming sibling tools explicitly.

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?

The workflow is implied: the replacement candidate comes from the search results ('差し替え候補の検索結果に含まれるもの'), which points the agent toward find_replacement_questions. However, the description never states when to use this over alternatives or any prerequisites, leaving routing to inference.

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