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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the non-obvious consequence that copy and images are shared because they belong to the layout, plus the per-KIND site-wide scoping rule and the detach behavior of global:false. It does not mention reversibility or permissions, so not a 5.

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-loads the core action and consequence, then moves into parameter guidance. Dense but every sentence earns its place; slightly long clauses keep it from a 5.

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, 5-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers mechanics, scope, and side effects well. Remaining gaps (failure behavior, permission needs) are minor against the destructiveHint annotation.

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?

With 80% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to three of five params: `pages` must cover all pages of the kind (or "all"), `variant` forces a single layout first (else they must already agree), and global:false detaches. This materially extends the terse schema descriptions.

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+resource (share one section across pages) and anchors it to the editor concept "Attach to a global", making the effect immediately legible. It clearly distinguishes itself from style/mutation siblings like set_section_style or replace_section by describing cross-page coupling.

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 strong operational context: `pages` must cover every page that has the kind (or "all"), `variant` normalizes instances first, and global:false detaches. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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