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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the operation is a replacement (not an append), that the result is saved as a draft unless state is PUBLISHED, and that the content is an Elemental document. This is useful behavioral disclosure that the annotations alone don't convey. It doesn't mention side effects like overwriting existing content, but the word 'Replace' covers that.

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 sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the state caveat is a single clause. Every word 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 3-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral nuance (draft vs published). It doesn't explain what the response looks like, but no output schema exists and the operation is a simple replace. The idempotentHint annotation covers repeat-call safety. Minor gap: no mention of whether the broadcast must exist or what happens if it doesn't, but that's not critical for a replace operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the draft/published state behavior, which clarifies the state parameter's effect, but doesn't add much beyond the schema. 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Replace'), a specific resource ('a broadcast's content'), and the document type ('Elemental document'). It also distinguishes itself from related tools like put_notification_content and put_journey_template_content by naming the broadcast resource. The draft/published state note adds precision.

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 description implies when to use it: when replacing a broadcast's content with an Elemental document. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list contains get_broadcast_content and create_broadcast, and the description's resource-specific language makes the use case clear. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead when...' statement, so not a 5.

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