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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety bar is partly met. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: whole-element replacement semantics ('not a substring or document-wide replace'), 'not valid on input/option shells', that properties are partial, and that moveTo preserves id/content. It does not address reversibility or permission requirements, so not a full 5.

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 purpose and the required-call precondition, then grouped by content/properties/moveTo. The properties enumeration is dense but justified by 60% schema coverage; the block is long but each clause carries a node-type constraint or example.

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 5-param, nested-object mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, per-field validity, moveTo usage examples, and the sibling to use for logic. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 60%, so the description must compensate and it largely does: it documents the two undescribed fields (isHidden, titleIsHidden) and adds cross-type validity (maxStars on rating-input, min/max/minLabel/maxLabel on linear-scale, defaultValue null clears). Much of the rest duplicates schema descriptions, capping it below 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 and resource (edit one element by nodeId) and enumerates the three editable facets (text, props, position). It clearly distinguishes itself from the insert_* siblings and from editor_formatText/editor_setLogic, which it names.

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 an explicit precondition ('Call editor_getDocument first and copy nodeId... never guess or reuse an ID from an earlier conversation') and routes one case to an alternative ('To set conditional logic rules... use editor_setLogic instead'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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