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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds what actually happens (validates against the brief, renders every page, opens the editor), the two possible return states ('ready' with editor_url vs 'importing'), and the required follow-up (poll deck_status). That is substantial behavior beyond the structured fields.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, leading with the core action and the sibling routing before the return semantics. The heavy em-dash compression slightly hurts readability but wastes no sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value explanation and does so well (ready vs importing, editor_url, polling). It omits failure modes or what makes validation fail, which would complete an otherwise strong definition.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents label, source, guest_token, and wait_seconds. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb and resource ('Replace the whole file of a deck') and scopes it to decks whose pages are all written. This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling submit_page, which the description names explicitly.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('whose pages are all written') and when-not ('while pages are still being written, submit_page each one — a whole file is refused then'), naming the alternative tool. Nothing is left to inference.

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