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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered structurally; the description adds the meaningful behavioral trait that writes are guarded by an app_read_doc revision, i.e. a concurrency check. It does not say what happens on a stale/mismatched rev or how the response looks, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

Three tight sentences with the audience constraint front-loaded, then the action, then the routing to the sibling. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers caller, action, concurrency guard, and the correct alternative. It leaves minor gaps around stale-revision failure behavior and return semantics, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description clarifies the purpose of rev (the guard returned by app_read_doc) but adds no syntax or meaning for edits, its loc/html items, or account beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Saves text ... as exact edits of the stored HTML') and immediately scopes the caller ('used by the docfarm doc view inside the chat, not by the assistant'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling patch_doc, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly gives both when-not-to-use ('not by the assistant') and the alternative ('Assistants edit docs with patch_doc instead'), plus the prerequisite that edits must be guarded by the rev from app_read_doc. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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