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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write) and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't contradict them. It adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: property order preservation and the need for x-tessryx-ui hints for certain types. It doesn't disclose side effects or reversibility, but for a versioning tool that's acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, a critical behavioral note, and usage routing. It is front-loaded with the primary action and tightly packed without fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested json_schema, publish logic), the description covers when to use, key behavioral constraints, and alternatives. It does not detail the return value, but the presence of an output schema covers that. It's sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema: it explains property order impacts the editor, mentions the publish parameter's effect, and directs to get_guide for hints. This adds meaning to the parameters, justifying a 4.

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 clearly states the tool adds a new version to an existing schema, using a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from create_schema for brand-new schemas. It also specifies the key action (evolve) and differentiates from update_schema implicitly by focusing on versioning.

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 tells when to use this tool ('to evolve a schema you already created') and when not to ('For a brand-new schema, use create_schema'). It also mentions publish_schema as an alternative for publishing, and get_guide for hints, providing clear routing among siblings.

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