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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses replace-collection semantics (omitted sections are deleted), that section IDs and comment anchors survive, that the write is atomic at the supplied revision, that stale revisions fail without writing, that edits touching pending review changes fail, that detached discussions are reported, and the required write consent and Strategy management rights. This is exactly the extra context a destructive mutation needs.

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 prerequisites, then destructive semantics, then failure modes, then permissions. It runs long at eight sentences, but nearly every sentence carries a distinct operational fact; only the trailing readback guidance borders on restating the conflict rule.

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 single-parameter, deeply nested destructive mutation with an output schema, the description covers provenance, atomicity, replacement semantics, permission gating, partial-failure reporting, and recovery. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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?

Although the reported top-level coverage is 0%, the description supplies provenance the schema cannot: revision must be asset.revision from the latest fetch with include_asset: true, and the section array is a complete desired state rather than a patch. It reinforces the delete-on-omission rule and the 'omit the field to leave unchanged' distinction, adding real meaning over the raw schema.

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 ("Updates one asset to the supplied state") and bounds the scope ("Currently supports Strategy title and ordered Markdown sections"). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling edit_strategy, so an agent must infer which mutation path to take, but the resource and field scope are unambiguous.

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 concrete when-to-use prerequisites (input must come from fetch with include_asset: true) and when-not boundaries ("Does not publish or run a service"), plus a conflict recovery path ("conflicts require a fresh fetch and reconciliation"). It never names the alternative sibling tools such as set_strategy_publication or edit_strategy directly, which keeps it just short of fully explicit routing.

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