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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add nuance — and it does, disclosing that the brief does not go live immediately but only when a later read finds that page, and that the record captures the site state at that moment. That deferred-confirmation model is meaningful behavioral context the agent could not infer from the annotations.

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 with the identifying inputs front-loaded and the follow-up action at the end, no filler. The slightly conversational opening ('Says where... went') costs a little immediacy but nothing is redundant.

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?

With three required, fully documented params and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: where the id comes from, that success is confirmed asynchronously, and which tool to call next. It omits failure/idempotency behavior, which keeps it from a 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%, and every parameter already carries a description including the mttr_content_next provenance, so the description largely restates the schema. Baseline 3 applies; it adds no format or edge-case detail (e.g. trailing slashes, duplicate paths) beyond what is structured.

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 concrete verb+resource combination: it records where a brief's page lives on the site, keyed by brief id and path, and ties that to marking the brief live. The phrasing 'Says where a content brief's page went' is a bit indirect for a mutation, but the referents (brief from mttr_content_next, page path) make the operation unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings.

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?

It explicitly names mttr_content_next as the source of the brief id and tells the agent to follow up with mttr_rescan to trigger a read. That is clear routing context, though it never states when to use mttr_content_drop or mttr_content_posts instead, nor any exclusion conditions.

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