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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the change lands in the site's draft, is visible in the editor immediately, and goes live only after publish. It does not, however, warn what happens on a failed match or how site-scope changes ripple across pages, leaving some destructive-operation side effects undisclosed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the matching rule and publish semantics. No filler, and each 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return/side-effect burden and does reasonably well by explaining the draft-versus-live lifecycle. It leaves a gap around failure modes (non-matching oldText, ambiguous matches with the site scope) for a destructive tool with five required parameters.

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 83%, so the schema already documents tag, route, scope, oldText, and newText in detail. The description reinforces the matching rule (tag plus exact current text) but adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema property descriptions already carry, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Change the text of one element on a page') and immediately scopes it to a single element matched by tag and exact current text, distinguishing it from siblings like set_style (styling) and batch_edit_design (bulk design edits). An agent can tell what this does without opening the 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?

It explicitly routes the agent to the sibling get_page_text ('copy both from get_page_text') for the matching inputs, which is concrete when-to-use guidance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or guidance on choosing between this and update_item or batch_edit_design, so it falls short of a 5.

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