update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It discloses the immutability of number/filename, but says nothing about permissions, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, whether a section replacement destroys existing content, or what the response returns.

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 tight sentences with the capability front-loaded and the hard constraint trailing as a scoping boundary. Every clause adds information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

A 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 10% parameter coverage needs far more than two sentences. The description omits parameter semantics, mutation behavior, and error/permission conditions that an agent must know before invoking it safely.

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?

With only 10% schema description coverage across 10 parameters, the description does useful work by grouping fields into categories (front-matter fields, H1, named body section) and clarifying that ref is the immutable identifier. However, most parameters (docs, tags, type, owner, collection, status_note) are never explained, leaving substantial gaps.

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 (Edit/replace) and a specific resource (an initiative's front-matter fields, H1, or named body section), which lets an agent separate it from generic siblings like update_collection or set_status. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 implies when to use it (editing existing initiative metadata or body sections) and states one exclusion (cannot change number or filename), but names no alternative tool and gives no prerequisite or context conditions. That is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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