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

Annotations already declare the write, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description's modest addition (that pages nest arbitrarily via a tree) is worth some credit. It stays at 3 because it never says what happens on duplicate slug or name, whether projectId/workspaceId are required in practice despite zero required params, or what a repeat call produces given idempotentHint=false.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is copied verbatim from the content parameter's schema description, which is mild duplication rather than an independent contribution.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the one non-obvious structural behavior (recursive page tree) and points to the authoring guide for body syntax, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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% (content and tags), so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It explains the content/pages pair but says nothing about projectId, workspaceId, slug, name, or summary, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 (creates a Docmino document) plus the two defining payload traits: MDX content and an optional nested page tree. It does not name update_document or otherwise tell the agent how it differs from sibling write tools, which keeps it below 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 only routing guidance is a pointer to get_authoring_guide for component syntax, which covers one sub-task but not the main create-vs-update decision. Nothing says when to use create_document rather than update_document, or under what conditions a create is appropriate.

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