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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: optimistic concurrency against the 'last acknowledged revision' and explicit conflict resolution ('A conflict keeps the server's revision'). It stops short of detailing auth requirements or exactly what text is overwritten on success.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The primary action comes first and the conflict rule second, so every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive 7-parameter mutation, the description covers the concurrency model and conflict outcome but omits sibling routing and most parameter semantics. It is partly rescued by the existing output schema and annotations covering return values and safety, but gaps remain.

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 43%, so the description should compensate, but it only indirectly maps to 'text' (editor's exact text) and 'expectedRevision' (last acknowledged revision). commitId, document, filename, and docKind receive no semantic help in the description, leaving much of the parameter surface undocumented.

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: 'Commits the editor's exact text against its last acknowledged revision.' This is clear enough to understand the action, but it never names or contrasts with close siblings such as document.save or document.apply_edits, leaving the agent to infer which write path to use.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The only contextual sentence ('A conflict keeps the server's revision') describes failure behavior, not when this tool should be chosen over document.save or document.apply_edits.

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