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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that blocks come back in save-content's own format ({name, attributes} or {markup}), that outline is block-name-per-index, and that hash drives optimistic concurrency via expectedHash. It stops short of stating auth requirements, permissions, or mutation side-effects, so it is not fully comprehensive, but it is well beyond a bare read statement.

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?

Front-loaded with the core read purpose, then the return payload, then the edit workflow, then the prerequisite rule. Dense but each clause (block format, hash, skill-doc) earns its place; the arrow-notation workflow compresses well.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description usefully summarizes the payload and, critically, supplies the prerequisite contract doc and the downstream save-content linkage that structured fields cannot express. For a single-param read tool this is close to complete.

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 100% and the single contentId parameter is fully documented ('Record id from list-content.'). The description adds no format or sourcing detail for contentId beyond the workflow mention, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (read) plus resource (ONE page/post/custom record) with an explicit scope contrast against list-content: it returns 'everything list-content reports plus slug, template, excerpt, featuredImage and blocks'. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling list tool 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?

States the when explicitly: 'The step before editing a page' with the exact chained call sequence get-content → save-content {contentId, mode:"edit", edits, expectedHash: hash}. It further names a prerequisite, get-skill-doc {id:"content-contract"}, to be read before the first call, leaving nothing to inference.

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