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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only; no side effects' largely repeats structured data. The description does add genuinely new context – the Markdown report return format and the rule that a doc whose cited paths are all deleted becomes a removal candidate – which is useful, but not rich beyond that.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the return payload, then the workflow routing. Every clause earns its place – no filler, no restating the name.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by itemizing what the report contains and its format. Combined with full parameter documentation and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 the schema already documents repository, changedPaths, and deletedPaths fully. The description's mention of an 'optional subset being deleted' and path-based overlap adds framing but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description names a specific trigger (file paths an agent is about to change) and enumerates the concrete outputs: conventions, documentation gaps, related docs, net-new/undocumented analysis, and removal candidates. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_doc_gaps or get_conventions because it is path-scoped and aggregates several analyses.

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?

Explicit sequencing guidance: 'Call this BEFORE writing code so doc updates land in the same PR,' followed by named next steps (propose_doc_update to write, propose_doc_removal for orphans). Both the when and the alternatives are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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