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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint and readOnlyHint false, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the share link stays exactly the same and existing viewers see the correction. This goes beyond the annotation flags and helps the agent understand consequences without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains the share-link behavior and recommended use case. No 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 4-parameter tool with strong schema coverage and annotations present, the description sufficiently explains the purpose, key non-obvious behavior, and use scenario. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists and this is not critical for an update operation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'contents or title' maps to the html and title parameters, but it does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly uses the verb 'Replace' with the resource 'contents or title of a document already published to SendPage', and implicitly distinguishes itself from publish_document by emphasizing the same share link is retained. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('fix a typo or update figures') and provides a clear alternative behavior ('instead of publishing again'), which effectively tells the agent not to re-publish. It does not name the sibling publish_document explicitly, but the intent is clear.

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