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

Adds context the annotations cannot: writes go to the DRAFT only and nothing shopper-visible changes until Publish — a critical nuance against destructiveHint=true. It also discloses that unknown section types and unknown setting keys are silently dropped, which is exactly the failure mode an agent must guard against.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, draft safety, silent-drop behavior plus prerequisite, and the hide-vs-remove idiom. Front-loaded with the action and safety constraint before the prerequisites.

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 draft semantics, silent drops, and prerequisite reads. Remaining gaps are minor: no statement of what happens to existing sections omitted from the array, and no handle format guidance.

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 67%, and the description compensates for the gaps: it explains that 'sections' is the entire ordered page including retained sections, and that enabled:false hides while preserving settings — meaning beyond a bare boolean in the schema. 'handle' is never explained in the description, so it is not fully covered.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Replace a page's layout.' The whole-page replacement scope is clear and it is distinguishable from siblings like define_section (defines a type) and list_section_types (reads the catalog) by naming them explicitly.

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 explicit prerequisites and ordering: 'read list_section_types first' and 'Call get_design_guide first if you have not.' It also names a concrete alternative pattern (enabled:false to hide rather than remove), so the agent knows both when to use this tool and how to use it instead of destructive deletion.

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