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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description's job is to explain why. It does: sending words replaces all existing words and embeddings are recomputed asynchronously in the background, which is behavior an agent must know before calling. It omits permission requirements and whether the rewrite is recoverable.

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 tight sentences, with the destructive replacement warning front-loaded. The only waste is the redundant first line repeating the tool title.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a nested request object and no output schema, the description covers the essential risks: partial-update default, total word replacement, and background embedding regeneration. It could add the project scoping requirement, but that is documented in the schema.

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?

Reported schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only adds the PATCH default (unsent fields unchanged) and word-replacement semantics. It says nothing about id, projectId scope rules, or the deprecated strict flag, leaving the agent to read the nested schema for the actual parameter contract.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Update a wordlist") and clarifies that the operation is a partial update. It implicitly separates itself from wordlist-words-add/wordlist-words-remove by explaining that sending words replaces the entire set, but it never names those siblings directly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the patch semantics ("Fields that you do not send stay the same") hint this is the tool for editing key/name/description, while word replacement overwrites everything. It does not state when to prefer wordlist-words-add or wordlist-words-remove for incremental edits, nor any prerequisites.

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