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

Annotations already establish that this is an idempotent, non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: there is no separate pin/unpin operation, only an arrangement composed of order and hidden arrays. This explains the data model beyond what the annotations provide.

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 operation front-loaded and the mental model delivered in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler and no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 three-parameter, idempotent write with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: an agent can understand what the call does and what input to provide. It could optionally enumerate valid tab keys or clarify how unlisted tabs are treated, but those are minor gaps.

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%, with descriptions for automation_id, order, and hidden, so the baseline applies. The description reinforces that order and hidden together encode the arrangement, but it does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Names a specific resource ('the automation detail view's tab arrangement') and a specific verb ('Replace'), and clarifies that pinning, unpinning, reordering, and hiding are all expressed as arrangement changes. It is clearly distinct from generic automation update tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish from.

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 implies the appropriate use case—changing the visible tabs or their order in the automation detail view—and the mention of hiding/pinning/reordering gives a clear trigger context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as getAutomationTabs or updateAutomation, so the guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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