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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the concretely useful detail that the page's existing narration audio is permanently cleared and can be regenerated. That is exactly the kind of 'what gets destroyed' context annotations cannot convey. It stops short of covering failure modes or permission requirements.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the irreversible side effect front-loaded in the second sentence. 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?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the destructive consequence, and the schema's confirmNarrationRemoval covers the approval gate. Gaps are limited to parameter-level detail that the sparse schema leaves undocumented.

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 only 25% — just confirmNarrationRemoval is documented, and that param already carries the approval workflow. The description obliquely signals pageContent ('the text') and pageNumber ('one story page'), but adds nothing about storyId, length limits, or content format, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Replace the text on one story page') and immediately names the secondary effect on narration audio. No sibling tool touches page-level text, so an agent can route to this confidently without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for editing the text of an already-created page. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no mention of alternatives such as create_story or rename_story, and no stated preconditions beyond what the schema enforces.

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