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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond them: the write touches only the sitemap, nothing on the rendered page changes, an empty string clears a note, and each write is one revision subject to race conditions. Minor gap: it never states permission/auth requirements or what happens to notes on sections not included in the call.

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?

Purpose and the set_text disambiguation are front-loaded in the first sentence. Guidance is dense and each sentence carries a rule, though the editorial aside about notes restating section names is longer than needed and could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the workflow (read before writing), the semantics (documentation vs. copy), the batching constraint, and the race-condition risk. Only the parameter-level details of index/projectId resolution are left entirely to the schema, which is a modest gap.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0% (pageName, projectId, descriptions have no top-level descriptions), so the description has to compensate, and it does partially: it explains the array is a batch that must be sent as one write, and gives content guidance for the description field (say what the section is FOR, derived from uichemy_get_page). It does not explain the index parameter's 1-based ordering, which only the nested schema covers.

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 — writing the sitemap note on a page's sections — and immediately disambiguates the concept: it is documentation shown in the sitemap panel, not rendered copy. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (uichemy_set_text), so an agent can separate the two without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit when-not (do not use this to put words on a section — that is uichemy_set_text), a prerequisite workflow (read uichemy_get_page first and describe the copy that is actually there), and a batching rule (every note on a page goes in ONE call). Alternatives and conditions are stated, not inferred.

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