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

Annotations already mark this destructive, non-idempotent, non-read-only, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: atomic batch semantics, no redlines, preservation of unchanged text and comment anchors, rejection of ambiguous matches, rejection of edits touching pending review changes, rejection of conflicting revisions, and the orphaned_discussion_ids side effect. This is exactly the extra context the annotations cannot carry.

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 core action, then each following sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact (atomicity, redline-free application, anchor preservation, rejection rules, response side effect, permissions). 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, yet the description still flags the notable orphaned_discussion_ids field. Combined with the rejection rules and permission requirement, an agent has everything needed to invoke this mutation safely.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates by explaining that 'revision' is the value returned by get_strategy and that operations are section edits applied as one batch. It does not enumerate the five action variants or their required fields, so it is not fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb ('applies an atomic batch of section edits') plus resource (strategy sections) and the key scoping constraint that it operates on a revision from get_strategy. An agent can distinguish this from create_strategy, delete_strategy, and update_innovation 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 the precondition for use (revision from get_strategy) and the rights requirement, plus rejection conditions that tell the agent when the call will fail. It does not name a sibling alternative or explicitly state when to prefer another tool, so it stops 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.