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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and the description adds a non-obvious side effect: editing the text marks the variant as edited. It also clarifies the operation publishes nothing, which is behavioral information the annotations do not convey.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the id-source hint and the non-publishing caveat following immediately. No wasted wording.

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?

A three-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety and idempotency, and no output schema. The description supplies the missing side-effect and non-publishing context; what remains unstated (failure modes) is minor.

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 variant_id, content (20,000 char limit), and the status enum plus the 'at least one of content or status' rule. The description adds nothing beyond that, so 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) plus resource (saved ContentRipple variant) and the two mutable fields (text, status). It names repurpose_content as the id source, which helps locate it among siblings, but does not explicitly contrast with the closest alternative, schedule_content_variant.

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?

'Use the variant id returned by repurpose_content' gives the precondition for calling, and 'Publishes nothing' implicitly routes publishing intent to schedule_content_variant. No explicit when-not statement, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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