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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description's 'Changes nothing' aligns with that safety profile. It adds the deprecation status, which is useful context. It doesn't describe side effects or return values, but annotations cover the core safety information.

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?

The message is front-loaded with the deprecation warning and contains only three short sentences. Every sentence serves a purpose: declaring obsolescence, giving the alternative, and noting the no-op behavior.

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 deprecated tool, the description provides enough to prevent misuse: it says it's not needed, names the replacement, and states it changes nothing. It lacks a brief note on what the tool originally did, but that is minor given its obsolescence.

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 0% and the description offers no explanation of the brief or pages parameters for this tool. The phrase 'with each page's name only (no sections)' refers to the replacement tool's parameters, not this one's, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 states the tool is 'not needed any more' and redirects to uichemy_create_project, but it never explains what uichemy_plan_site itself does. An agent can infer it is obsolete, but the specific verb+resource (planning a site) is absent.

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?

It explicitly says not to use this tool and names the alternative uichemy_create_project with clear instructions on how to call it ('with each page's name only (no sections)'). The substitution rule is unambiguous.

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