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

With annotations only declaring readOnly=false and destructive=false, the description adds the traits that actually matter: values go live at once, expected_version must come from get_values, and a stale version yields a 409 conflict. That is real behavioral 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?

The mutation semantics, payload shape, versioning rule and conflict code are all packed into one front-loaded paragraph with no filler. The second block is compact and carries only the safety gate.

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 nested-object write tool with no output schema, the description covers immediacy, concurrency control and error signaling. It stops short of saying whether the call is all-or-nothing across groups or what a success response looks like, but nothing essential to calling 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the provenance and intent of expected_version (pull it from get_values, otherwise read first) and the 409 consequence of getting it wrong. The values shape restates the schema and adds no format detail beyond it.

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 ("Change the site's group values"), gives the key scope (content:publish), and says the change is immediately live. It also names the companion read tool get_values, so an agent can place it precisely among siblings.

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?

The [When to use] block gives an explicit gating rule (only on explicit user request) plus an injection guard, and it routes the agent to get_values when no values_version is held. It does not contrast against other write siblings such as update_schema or update_settings, but the when-to-use condition itself is unambiguous.

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