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

Adds real behavioral content beyond the annotations: the whole-set replacement semantics and the fact that the prior plan is preserved in the audit trail. That audit-trail note also usefully explains why idempotentHint is false, since repeated calls accumulate history. It does not cover permissions or the response shape.

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-loads the core action and then explains the replacement rationale in two tight sentences. The trailing "Effects: path-in bullets replaced." restates what the second sentence already said, which is mild redundancy but not bloat.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive-flavored mutation with no output schema, the description covers the crucial ambiguity (does this append or overwrite?) and the data-retention question. Return values are unspecified, which is the main remaining gap but a minor one for a setter.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description earns more by clarifying that the bullets array is a complete replacement rather than an append — a semantic distinction the schema alone ("The plan, in order.") does not convey. It also implies ordering matters, matching the array's intent.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Replace") against a specific resource (the ordered "how we get in" plan for an account), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, name a sibling or state how it differs from adjacent CRM tools like crm_update_account or crm_add_account, so it stops short of a 5.

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 makes the usage model implicit but readable: this is the tool for defining the whole plan, not appending to it. It never states when to use it versus alternatives, nor any preconditions (e.g., account must already exist, which is only inferable from the schema's "An existing account id").

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