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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses atomicity per entry, full-batch rejection with failedOpIndex on bad ops, Markdown-only content (no HTML, no inline base64), and node-id addressing behavior. It also explains the multi-node production and id-keeping behavior for replace, adding substantial operational context.

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?

The description is long but information-dense; every sentence adds a needed technical constraint (Markdown vs HTML, image asset requirement, atomicity, error handling, id behavior). It is structured as a continuous paragraph, which is acceptable given the complexity, though a few bullet points could improve scannability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested arrays, 50-item limits, atomic ops, failure modes) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: op semantics, ordering, node addressing, content syntax, asset handling, and rejection on bad ops. It even points to describe_mnemon_types.blockOps for full vocabulary, making it a thorough reference.

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?

The top-level parameters campaignId and items are not explicitly named in the description (0% schema description coverage), but it compensates by thoroughly explaining the nested item structure, entryId, the four op types, blockId, afterBlockId, and markdown format rules. The meaning of campaignId is left implicit, which is a minor gap given its simple schema definition.

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 opens with 'Edit the body content of one or more mnemon entries,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the many type-specific update_* siblings by focusing on ops-based content editing, and the detailed op list clarifies the unique scope.

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 provides clear context on when and how to use the tool (editing body nodes via ops), and references get_mnemon for node IDs and describe_mnemon_types for op vocabulary. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with the many sibling update_* tools (e.g., update_custom_mnemons), leaving the choice only implied.

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