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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it replaces the entire table of contents, preserves order, and removing it via an empty list. This goes beyond the structured annotation hints.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core action and the edge case (empty list removes the TOC). There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 destructive tool with an expected_revision parameter, dry_run flag, and no output schema, the description lacks essential operational details such as concurrency semantics, dry-run behavior, and parameter roles. The tool can be invoked correctly only with substantial inference.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters. It only alludes to the chapters list ('ordered list') and empty-list behavior, but does not explain catalogue_id, expected_revision, or dry_run. The agent must infer their meaning entirely from names and constraints.

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 names a specific verb ('Replaces') and resource ('the table of contents'), and clarifies the effect of an empty list. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling foliade_import_chapters.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as foliade_import_chapters. It states the replacement behavior but no context about prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or when not to call it.

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