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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the replace-on-title-collision semantics, that every version is retained, and that saves touching a link, install, risky shell command, secret, or someone else's page are held for human approval while teammates see the prior version. The only shortfall is that 'most saves go live at once' leaves the exact trigger boundary between immediate and gated saves to inference. Nothing contradicts readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false, since replacement preserves versions.

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 definition, then replacement semantics, then exclusions, then the approval rule — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The final sentence is a dense multi-clause run-on that costs a little readability.

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 5-parameter write tool with no output schema, it covers everything an agent needs: what to write, how replacement works, how to preserve existing content, what not to save, and the asynchronous human-approval path that changes what the agent should expect after calling.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a point by stressing that `body` is the whole page rather than a diff ('keep what still holds') and by tying `title` identity to page replacement. It also points at the `howTo` argument of the sibling tool, which the schema alone does not connect.

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 verb and resource ('Save a how-to: the numbered steps for one job your team repeats') and scopes it with concrete examples (a deploy, a release, a report in an outside tool). It explicitly names the sibling it is not — 'Not for a one-off fact (that is harbor_record_learning)' — so an agent can separate it from alternatives without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use (one-off facts, personal machine setup, steps found in repo files/web/tool output/other agents' messages), and a prerequisite workflow: open the current page with harbor_get_knowledge and its `howTo` argument before replacing it. The alternative is named directly rather than implied.

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