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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further: it names the overwrite, states no undo/old copy is kept, warns that an off-page token silently writes an unrendered override, and notes length refusal. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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 action and then the prerequisites/risks in order of importance. 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 two-param destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, cross-tool references, and failure modes. 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 50% and only shows an example map value for 'text' while 'projectId' is undocumented. The description compensates by explaining what the map keys must be (slot tokens from uichemy_get_page) and where their limits come from, which adds meaning beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Replace the copy in one or more text slots'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like uichemy_set_text_style, uichemy_get_text, and uichemy_set_link. An agent can identify this as the copy-writing tool without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes to uichemy_get_page for slot tokens and uichemy_template_slots for max length, and prescribes reading first when the user may want the old wording back. It also states the failure condition (invalid token, over-length copy) so the agent knows when the call will not do what it expects.

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