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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the crucial governance layer: what 'replaces' means, that changes are recorded, and that specific change types (moving a target page, removing a cluster, changing the goal) are held for agency approval. That is material behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 map's definition and the save action, and every sentence carries information. It is dense, with long parenthetical clauses, but nothing is redundant.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, replacement semantics, and approval exceptions, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. It does not hint at what a save returns (e.g., draft vs. applied status), leaving a minor gap.

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 exceeds it by tying approval gating to specific fields (target page moves, cluster removal, goal changes), giving the agent field-level consequences the schema descriptions do not encode.

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 (save) and resource (the client's keyword map) and defines what the map is in operational terms. It clearly separates this from keyword_research (which builds the map), keyword_map_get, and keyword_map_approve by naming them as adjacent steps.

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?

Explicitly says this stores the map built from keyword_research, that the first save is a draft approved via keyword_map_approve, and that later saves replace rather than create. The when-to-use path and the sibling tool it depends on are both named.

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