Edit Mod Page (author)

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to re-state those. It adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: unchanged fields are resent exactly as loaded, and omitting all edit fields provides a view-only request. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and editable fields, and each subsequent sentence adds necessary behavioral or usage information. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes to correct invocation.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the editable fields, preservation semantics, dry-run behavior, and view-mode behavior. It does not describe the response shape or explicit save confirmation, but given the rich annotations and clear parameter guidance, the remaining gap is minor.

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 only 57%, leaving name, mod_id, and version without schema descriptions. The description compensates by enumerating which fields are editable, clarifying that description is BBCode, and explaining that omitted optional fields are preserved rather than cleared. It does not add detail for version format, but the schema pattern already covers that constraint.

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 specifies a verb ('Edit'), a resource ('YOUR mod page'), and the exact editable fields (name, summary, full description, version). It ties the behavior to the mod editor's Save action and distinguishes this tool from sibling comment-editing tools by making the author-scoped mod page resource explicit.

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 gives practical usage context: omitting all edit fields turns the call into a view of current values, and dry_run provides a preview. It does not explicitly list sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the resource scope and field list make the intended use clear without needing an explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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