Inspect or clean overlapping pin labels

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false): it discloses the inspect→preview→apply workflow, the backup on apply, the exact removal scope ('only exact visible duplicate free DOC, preserving native pin labels'), that alignment moves anchors only, and the refusal behavior when space is insufficient. It even states what the tool will NOT infer, giving strong boundary transparency.

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?

Five dense sentences, but each carries distinct information and the scope statement is front-loaded. Slightly jargon-heavy, but no sentence is redundant; it is appropriately sized for a dual-mode diagnostic/cleanup tool.

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 10-parameter, annotation-light mutation tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: modes, apply/backup behavior, removal scope, and negative scope are all covered. It does not describe the inspection output shape, a minor gap given there is no output schema to lean on.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics on top: the meaning of omitting vs supplying expectedSha256, that confirm=true applies-with-backup, and that alignOverlappingRightPins only relocates right-edge label anchors. These interpretations help beyond the raw schema.

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 pair (inspect/clean) and resource (pin labels) scoped to GDF/SYM files, and names the exact phenomena it targets: 'pin/DOC duplicates and fixed-font same-row pin collisions.' This meaningfully differentiates it from generic siblings like gdf_text_format_inspect or gdf_symbol_refresh. It stops short of naming a sibling directly, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 explicit mode-selection conditions: 'Omit expectedSha256 to inspect' vs 'Supply a fresh hash to preview cleanup; confirm=true applies with backup.' That is clear when-to-use-this-mode guidance. It does not, however, point to an alternative tool for cases outside its scope, so the alternatives clause is missing.

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