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

Goes beyond annotations by explaining what delete actually destroys ('every resource pinned in it'), what update preserves ('omitted fields are kept'), the return shapes for create/update/delete, and the auth prerequisites (mcp scope, mcp:read tokens refused, user role). This is materially more than the destructive/non-idempotent hints.

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 action multiplexing, then one clause per action, then the alternative-read tool, then the annotation rationale and auth constraints. No sentence is filler and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

Despite six parameters, three actions, and destructive behavior, the description covers everything needed to invoke it safely: per-action requirements, destructive blast radius, return values, auth scope, and the read alternative. The output schema exists but the inline return shapes are a helpful bonus.

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 is 3; the description adds conditional semantics the schema cannot express (name+slug required for create, sectionIdentifier required for update, omitted fields retained). 'position' is left entirely to the schema, which keeps this from a 5.

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 set and resource: 'Create, update or delete a section of a status page', then enumerates each action. It clearly separates itself from sibling manage_status_page_resource (pinned resources vs sections) and points to get_status_page for reads.

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?

Gives per-action usage conditions (what is required for create vs update vs delete) and routes read-only needs to the sibling 'get_status_page include=sections'. The only exclusions are implicit, but the routing is explicit enough that an agent picks correctly.

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