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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: content is validated against the collection schema with warnings on rejection, built-in name/slug keys in content are refused, and a retry creates a second entry (non-idempotent). That non-idempotency warning is exactly the kind of risk detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries payload (validation, value shapes, name/slug exclusion, retry hazard). It is dense and slightly cramped into a single block, but no sentence is filler.

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 5-param mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers validation behavior, slug derivation (via schema), and duplicate-creation hazard well. The one gap is that it never says what a successful call returns (e.g., the new entry ID), which an agent would need for follow-up calls.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds substantial semantics the schema lacks: 'content' is documented only as free-form key-value pairs, and the description specifies value shapes (arrays for list:true, entry ID strings for references, YYYY-MM-DD or offset-timestamp for dates) and that name/slug live at top level. Minor deduction only because the reference/date rules depend on external 'config.time' context.

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 ('Create a new entry in a collection') and implicitly separates itself from update_entry and save_entry_content by emphasizing 'new'. An agent can identify the operation and its scope immediately.

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 explicit sequencing ('call get_collection first') and an explicit recovery path ('look for the slug with list_entries before trying again'), plus a clear exclusion ('keys for the built-in name and slug fields are refused'). This is when-to-use guidance an agent can act on without inference.

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