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

Goes well beyond annotations in useful ways: 'never cut mid-JSON' and 'all' (fitted, may shorten) disclose truncation/fitting behavior, 'an unknown name gets did_you_mean' discloses the error path, and 'no key needed' discloses auth. It also explains where operations land (live | next_open | state), which annotations cannot convey.

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 default behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence and every clause carries information. The heavy parenthetical, em-dash-dense packing makes it harder to scan than necessary, but nothing is filler or redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description still describes return shapes for every mode (default overview, op details, section views) and the truncation caveat. Combined with annotations covering safety and idempotency, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 already 100%, yet the description still explains each parameter's effect: op/ops return entries in full, and every enum value of section is spelled out (recipes contents, ops in full, summary = field map + workflow + policy, all = fitted). It adds genuine semantics over the schema, including multi-value behavior via ops:[…].

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 resource (the catalog of session edit ops that doseedo_edit_session accepts) and its serving model ('views that each fit one answer'). It explicitly names the tool it supports, so an agent can distinguish it from doseedo_edit_session itself without opening either schema.

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?

Strong sequencing guidance: 'read it ONCE before a build', then fetch by op/section, and 'copy one instead of discovering op order' for recipes. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it or contrast it with the sibling doseedo_recipes tool, which plausibly overlaps.

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