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

Annotations only declare the write/readOnly/destructive profile; the description adds non-obvious behavior — that a 'show' action leaves the target visible in the editor baseline unless isHidden:true is also set, and that chaining/multiple rules require separate inserts. That is meaningful operational context beyond the structured fields.

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-loaded with the core action, then constraint, then the side-effect gotcha, then a pointer. Every sentence carries an instruction or warning; the wording is dense but not padded.

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 deeply nested, high-complexity insert tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical gotchas (one rule per element, isHidden side-effect) and defers detail to load_skill. It omits any mention of the placement/`after` chaining behavior, which the agent must get from the schema.

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 schema documents parameters in depth; baseline would be 3. The description goes beyond it by tying the 'show' action semantics to a required isHidden mutation on the target, which the schema alone does not connect.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Insert one logic element containing exactly one conditional rule'), and the 'exactly one rule' scope is a real distinguishing constraint. It stops short of naming or contrasting the adjacent siblings editor_setLogic / editor_testLogic, so an agent still infers which of the logic tools to pick.

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 concrete usage rules: one rule per element, insert separate elements for additional rules, and the show-action pairing with isHidden. It also routes to load_skill("logic-rules") for depth. No explicit when-not or direct contrast with setLogic, so not a full 5.

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