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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only, and the description builds on that by stating the entire document is replaced, not patched, and that a new published revision is created. It also discloses permission needs)Skip, which the annotations do not include.

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 sentences carry maximum signal: the first defines the operation and its boundary, the second adds schema and permission context. No filler, no repetition of schema content, and key behavior is front-loaded.

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 full-replace operation with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the semantic, the permission requirement, and the schema constraint. It does not describe the exact response or failure modes, but the annotations and full parameter schemas cover the invocation essentials.

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 the schema already explains all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds the requirement that `data` must match the collection schema and referencesthe describe_resource tool, but it does not need to duplicate parameter-level details.

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 names a specific verb ('Replace'), resource ('a record's document'), and action type ('full-document replace, not a partial patch'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from creation or reading, and the 'new published revision' detail adds precision.

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 description makes the use case clear: replace a full record, not patch it. It mentions a prerequisite (UPDATE permission) and a pointer to describe_resource for schema validation. However, it does not explicitly compare against siblings like create_record or get_record or provide a when-not-to-use condition.

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