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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: 'Saves a new version and returns it' discloses versioning/recoverability and that the result is returned, which the hints alone do not convey. It stops short of mentioning permissions or undo semantics.

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 sentences with zero waste; the usage trigger is front-loaded, followed by scope, versioning behavior, and the routing alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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-parameter edit tool with rich annotations and an existing output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: trigger, scope, supported operations, versioning behavior, and the alternative tool. Return-value detail is correctly left to the output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (artifactId, instruction) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (edit) and resource (artifact/item) and enumerates the exact operation types supported (rewrite, shorten, expand, tone, grammar, translate). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling editors like edit_app/edit_image and from review_artifact.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user wants one of their existing Xenition items changed in place'), scopes applicability ('Best for documents and notes'), and names the alternative with its selecting condition ('To only suggest changes without editing, use review_artifact'). Nothing is left to inference.

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