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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses major behavioral traits: only supplied fields are sent, the body is fully replaced, baseUpdatedAt is required, stale/fabricated values cause OUT_OF_SYNC and no write, and special fields like read-aloud/moving-on/tactics are not fields but inline callouts. This greatly exceeds the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 description is long, but almost every sentence conveys necessary operational or safety-critical information. The field enumeration is a bit exhaustive, and the warning section could be tightened, but the structure is logical: purpose, updatable fields, special syntax, permissions, critical replacement warning, and concurrency requirement.

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 mutation tool with zero schema parameters, this description covers all necessary context: target resource, auth requirement, full field list, special inline syntax, destructive replacement behavior, concurrency control, and explicit alternatives. An agent could correctly invoke this tool with only the description and a fresh read of the page.

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?

The input schema is empty, so the description carries the entire parameter burden. It lists every updatable AdventurePage field and explains the required baseUpdatedAt parameter, its source, and why it matters. This is far more than the schema alone provides.

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 opens with 'PUT updates to one adventure page by id', which states a specific verb, resource, and mode of operation. It also enumerates exactly which fields are updatableament and explicitly names related sibling tools (imagine_replace_in_adventure_page, imagine_get_adventure_page), so the agent can distinguish it from similar update tools.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use the surgical sibling for fixing wording, fetch-then-send for appending, and this tool for full field updates. It also states required permissions ('Caller must have 'edit'') and warns against writing from memory. This leaves little ambiguity about when to select this tool versus alternatives.

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