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

Annotations already cover safety hints, and the description adds substantial behavior: only passed fields change, block type is immutable, the response returns the block AS STORED with updated/ignored lists that must be checked, and phase:'always' clears staging with no other removal path. This is rich, non-contradictory operational context.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then response handling and the special phase case. Every sentence adds practical value, though it could be slightly tightened given the volume of detail.

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 35-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers key behavioral semantics (partial update, immutability, response handling, staging removal) but leaves most input parameters unexplained. An agent can understand the tool's nature and safety profile but still lacks guidance on many fields.

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 0% for 35 parameters, so the description must compensate but only gives a handful of examples (link title/URL, price, event date, opening hours, display order) and explains phase:'always'. It leaves most parameters (e.g., days, mode, limit, links, images, faqItems, startDate, etc.) without added meaning beyond their bare schema names.

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 (patch) and resource (one existing block on a bio page), with examples of what can change. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings add_mini_site_block and remove_mini_site_block by noting the block type cannot be changed and that removal/creation is the alternative.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context and alternatives: use for partial updates to an existing block, not for changing block type (remove and add instead), and use get_mini_site first to get blockId. It also explains the special phase:'always' use case for un-staging.

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