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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the crucial consequence that annotations cannot express: the copy does NOT carry over because slot tokens belong to the template, so the new layout renders tokens raw until filled. This is exactly the kind of destruction/behavior disclosure that lets an agent anticipate data loss.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the critical data-loss warning and the workflow pointer. No filler; every sentence carries distinct information.

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 this covers the essentials: what changes, what is lost, and how to re-fill. It omits permission/auth requirements and reversibility, but the key agent-relevant behaviors are present.

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 only 17% (just `index`), so the description carries most of the burden. It adds real meaning for `text` (slot tokens sourced from uichemy_template_slots), but `kind`, `variant`, `projectId`, and `pageName` — including how `kind`/`variant` select the template — remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Swap the layout rendering at one position — same slot, different template'), which is precise enough to separate it from uichemy_add_section and uichemy_remove_section by implication. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 a clear usage context (replacing at an existing position rather than adding/removing) and a concrete procedural step: call uichemy_template_slots for the new layout and pass `text`. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tools or stating when-not to use it.

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