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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description reinforces this with 'Replaces the current notice,' so the agent knows the prior value is lost. It also adds a permission constraint that annotations do not express. It does not cover failure behavior when the caller is not master or how to read back the result.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive replacement semantic front-loaded right after the core verb. Nothing to cut.

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 2-parameter write tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, this covers purpose, constraint, permission and replacement semantics. What is missing is minor: nothing about error behavior for non-master callers or where the notice surfaces.

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 100%, so 'text' and 'api_key' are already documented in the schema. The description's 'one line' adds a small constraint beyond the schema's 'max 32 characters' (no newlines), but it does not explain the api_key fallback parameter at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Write the front-page notice') with a hard constraint (one line, max 32 chars) and a scope qualifier ('only the current ★master'). This clearly separates it from get_notice, the read counterpart among the siblings.

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?

The parenthetical 'only the current ★master' tells the agent the precondition for calling it, which functions as a when-to-use gate. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. use get_notice to read, or nothing for non-masters), so it is clear context but not explicit routing.

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