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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful detail beyond them: exactly what is destroyed ('overwrites the previous text; the old text is not kept') and that the target is publicly visible. It stops short of stating anything about notifications or failure modes, but the added destructive detail is the key piece an agent needs.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the operation type and the destructive consequence, then the endpoint. No filler or repetition.

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 mutation with full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, the description covers what changes, what is lost, and where it is visible. Minor gaps (notification side effects, whether the update must pre-exist) keep it short of 5.

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%, with content, page_id and the confirm gate all described in the schema itself. The description only restates that the content parameter is the new text, adding no format, length, or ID-provenance detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (rewrite) and resource (text of an existing notice update) plus scope (PUBLIC status page), and the PATCH path confirms it edits an existing update rather than creating one, which distinguishes it from sorryapp_create_notice_update and sorryapp_update_notice.

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 'WRITE' label plus 'existing notice update' implies this is for editing an already-created update rather than creating a new one, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance or prerequisite statement (e.g., that the update must already exist or that a notification is triggered).

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