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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds what actually gets destroyed: rows are soft-deleted and existing links to them are marked broken, and it warns that writing to title_* content may not render until the page is enabled. This is meaningful context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation and the routing decision before the denser directive-syntax and title-page details. It is long and information-dense, but each sentence carries authoring or safety information an agent needs; slightly heavy but 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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the destruction model, the idempotent bulk-replace semantics, the incremental alternative, and the content format. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is 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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by documenting the TrMD directive syntax for trmContent (column bands, id-header/id-row grids, link cells taking whitespace-separated TraceID names) and the meaning of the title_* segment values. It adds real authoring semantics not present in the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope ('Replace a whole segment with the given TrMD — the primary bulk-authoring tool'), and explicitly positions itself against siblings by naming traceable_block_write/traceable_block_update for incremental edits. An agent can distinguish this from every other write tool without opening a 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?

States the alternative tools and the exact condition that selects them ('for incremental edits'), plus the title_* segment caveat about the title page being switched off. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are explicit.

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