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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses the full mutation profile: a new version is created with the previous one kept, images are redone, output goes through a quality check, and the post returns in review rather than published. It even documents the no-op edge case (user's own verbatim post, or no capabilities in the guide) returning one line with nothing changed.

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 purpose, scope, and the sibling alternative, then the behavioral caveats. It is dense and long, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information; the em-dash-heavy style is slightly harder to scan than a clean sentence-per-idea structure.

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 5-param mutation tool with no output schema, it covers everything an agent needs: what is regenerated, what is preserved, the review state of the return, and the exact conditions under which nothing happens.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by telling the agent to 'pass the user's reason if they gave one' and explaining that it is folded in as critic notes, which is semantic guidance not present in the schema field text.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Re-makes one post from the brand guide') and immediately scopes it as a fresh concept for THIS post under the current guide. It distinguishes itself from ask_for_changes by contrast, so an agent can separate it from sibling editing tools without opening a 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when the idea itself was wrong — it describes a feature the product doesn't have, or the wrong audience'), explicit when-not ('not just a line or an image'), and names the alternative ('for a targeted edit use ask_for_changes'). It also states the boundary with approval/publishing tools.

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