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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it requires exact preservation of returned locations and expectedText, and forbids inventing replacement forms for unsupported or ambiguous features. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but adds useful output-handling discipline.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence carries a rule, though the phrase about unsupported features is slightly terse. No filler or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries more return-value burden. It partially addresses this by naming returned locations and expectedText, but does not fully explain their structure or how they relate to editing. Combined with the undocumented fileId parameter, this is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 50%: projectId is described, but fileId has no description, only a pattern and length constraints. The description adds no parameter meaning for either field, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented fileId.

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 (inspect), resource (stored original), and scope (supported editable targets). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling read tools like read_original_page or read_source_original, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any sibling tools named. The constraints about preserving locations and resolving unsupported features are behavioral rules, not usage conditions for selecting this tool.

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