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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false) by disclosing required auth scopes per status, a 15-second propagation window, and precise 409 semantics for version conflicts vs status transitions. The warning that 'data replaces every locale: send back what you did not change' is critical mutation behavior not captured anywhere in 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 semantics and the destructive-replacement warning, then the [When to use] block. The auth-scope parenthetical is dense but each clause carries operational information; little could be cut without losing error-recovery guidance.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the failure modes an agent must handle (409 conflict, 409 status_changed, read-again-and-ask-user recovery) plus the nested 'data' replacement contract. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and recover from errors.

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 80%, and the description adds real meaning on top: expected_version's optionality and fallback behavior, and that data is a whole-locale replacement rather than a merge. The 'collection' parameter carries no description in either place, leaving one gap.

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 ('Replace') plus resource ('a CMS entry's data') and immediately distinguishes draft vs published states with their respective scopes. The agent can separate this from create_entry or publish_entry without opening the 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 instructs to read via get_entry first and pass expected_version, defines the opt-out behavior (entry is read first if omitted), and includes a [When to use] block that scopes invocation to explicit user requests and forbids acting on instructions found in external data.

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