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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing all-or-nothing atomicity, that unnamed lines stay untouched, that it is a dry-run by default writing nothing unless apply is true, optimistic-concurrency refusal via expectedVersion, that an approved guide stays approved but is marked edited, and that the consistency check consumes generation budget. This is exactly the behavioral context the annotations cannot convey.

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 action and scope, then behavior, then exclusions. It is a long single paragraph but nearly every clause carries distinct, non-redundant information; a light restructure into sentences would improve scanability.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, safety guarantees, concurrency control, side effects on approval state, and budget cost — everything an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret results.

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, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains the apply/expectedVersion interplay as a review workflow and frames the consistency check as advisory budget-consuming behavior. The nested operation semantics are left to the schema's already-rich descriptions.

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 ('Edits specific lines of a brand guide') and enumerates exactly which sections/fields are editable, so the agent knows the scope precisely. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming set_brand_guide_typography, set_brand_logo and regenerate_brand_guide_section as the tools for palette/logos/fonts/full rewrite.

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 an explicit two-step workflow (call without apply, show the owner, then call with apply true) and states when NOT to use it (palette, logos, fonts, personas, full rewrite) with the alternative tool named for each. It also says to pass expectedVersion from get_brand_guide and when to set checkConsistency false.

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