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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already flag this as a mutating operation, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: campaign topics are always searched regardless of edits, user topics persist across campaign changes, and the tool returns the resolved topic union. This gives the agent a clear mental model of post-edit state without contradicting the annotations.

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, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second clarifies constraints and persistence behavior, and the third discloses the return value. The core action is front-loaded with supporting details following logically.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the essentials: what is edited, what cannot be edited, how user topics behave over time, and what is returned. It is slightly short on guidance about when this is the right tool among many topic/lead-magnet siblings, but the operational details an agent needs to call it correctly are present.

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 67%, with add and removeIds already documented in the schema. The description adds modest context by framing the workspace as the edit scope (which loosely maps to workspaceId) and the 'magnet discovery' domain, but it does not meaningfully enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('workspace's free-text search topics for magnet discovery'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It further distinguishes scope by carving out campaign topics as off-limits, which differentiates it from campaign-topic and search-topic listing tools even without naming a sibling 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?

The description implies when to use this tool: to manage user-contributed free-text topics rather than campaign-derived ones. It communicates an implicit exclusion ('campaign topics ... cannot be removed here') but stops short of naming alternatives like list_search_topics or get_campaign_topics, or stating when an agent should prefer those instead.

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