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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description goes well beyond that, disclosing state-preservation semantics ('components keep their ids, id-styles and symbol links') and the side effect that invalidates cached state ('Paths shift'). That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before chaining edits.

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 dense sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the examples, the preservation guarantee, and the path-shift warning. Each sentence carries a distinct, actionable fact.

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 purpose, preservation, the required re-read follow-up, and the correct alternative tool. It does not say what the call returns (e.g. new paths for the wrapped block) or how to undo, which would fully close the loop for an agent planning a sequence of edits.

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 all four parameters (including the endPath range semantics and the tagName enum constraints) are already documented in structured form. The description's example of wrapping 'everything between the navbar and footer' illustrates endPath but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Wrap a run of sibling components in one new element') and immediately grounds it with two concrete examples (navbar/footer into `<main>`, a footer symbol into `<footer>`). It also names the siblings it is not — `edit_section` and `replace_page_content` — so an agent can separate it from the other structural tools without opening schemas.

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 an explicit directive ('ALWAYS use this to add a wrapper') plus the consequence of the alternative ('re-sending the components through edit_section/replace_page_content loses their styles'). It also states the prerequisite for the next call: 'call `read_page` before the next path-based edit.' When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and sequencing are all covered.

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