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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, which the description aligns with by stating 'Replace'. The description adds that it is 'Operator-driven', giving insight into intended use. It does not contradict the annotations. While it could disclose more about the overwrite behavior (e.g., irreversibility), the annotation coverage lowers the burden, and the description provides sufficient additional context.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the distinction from the append tool is included. Every word earns its place, making it highly scannable and efficient.

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 simple set operation with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic action and a hint about usage context (operator-driven, alternative to append). However, it omits any mention of expected behavior beyond replacement, such as what happens to the previous SOUL.MD, any prerequisites, or error handling. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 50%: the soulMd parameter has a description, but agentIdOrAddress has none. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter—it provides no explanation of what 'agentIdOrAddress' refers to or its format. Since coverage is moderate and the description adds no parameter-level detail, it fails to help the agent correctly populate the undocumented field.

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 clearly states the action: 'Replace an Agent's SOUL.MD with the provided markdown.' It identifies the resource (Agent's SOUL.MD) and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ethora-agent-soul-append by calling itself an 'alternative to -append'. This makes it easy for an agent to understand exactly what this tool does and how it differs from similar tools.

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 provides context that this is 'Operator-driven' and positions it as an alternative to -append, which implies it is used when the entire SOUL.MD should be overwritten rather than appended to. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the append variant beyond this single phrase, nor does it mention any preconditions or scenarios.

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