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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses rich behavior: only supplied fields change, content is a full replacement, an empty string clears the text, and prior text is retained in revision history. The workflow-stage acceptance rule is a constraint no annotation conveys.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core mutation, then replacement semantics, history behavior, prerequisite read, and the workflow constraint. No sentence is filler and the ordering prioritizes what affects the call.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite read, the replacement/clearing behavior, reversibility (revision history), and the environmental timing constraint. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly appears 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, title, and content including the empty-string-clear semantics. The description's 'only supplied fields change' adds partial-update meaning, but overall the schema does the heavy lifting, matching the baseline 3.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb-and-resource pair ('Rename an instruction document or rewrite its text whole') and makes the partial-update semantics explicit. An agent can distinguish this from create_instruction, delete_instruction, and archive_instruction without opening any 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?

It gives a clear prerequisite ('Read current text ... resource first') and a timing constraint (mutations accepted only during a workflow run's self-improvement stage). It does not, however, explicitly name the read alternative or contrast with sibling update tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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