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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description usefully adds that the result is returned WITHOUT saving, that a quota is consumed (one of the plan's monthly rewrites), and that confirm is required after a preview. That is real behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though reversibility of the quota spend is not discussed.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and per-parameter meaning come first, then the save/confirm workflow. Slightly run-on across sentences but every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description fills the gap by describing the return (the new section plus the whole body). It covers the confirm workflow and quota, making it sufficient for correct invocation, though quota exhaustion behavior is left unstated.

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 coverage is 57%, and the description carries the undocumented index and heading parameters, explaining the 0 = opening convention and null-for-opening case, plus examples for instruction. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though org/body/confirm semantics remain only in the schema.

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 (rewrite) and a precisely scoped resource (one section of a draft) driven by an instruction, with concrete instruction examples. It is clearly distinguished from sibling seovyn_edit_article, which it names as the saving step.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: this tool rewrites, and saving must be done via seovyn_edit_article, plus the confirm-only-after-preview rule. It also scopes the tool to the plan's monthly section rewrites, giving a clear usage context. No explicit when-not-to-use, keeping it below a 5.

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