LightCMS

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true; the description complements this by detailing the five mutation operations (clear, set, prepend, append, wrap) and their exact behavior, plus explaining dry_run safety mechanics. Adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Excellent structure: one-line summary, bulleted operation definitions, scope filter guidance, dry_run note, and concrete example. Information is front-loaded and every sentence/section serves a distinct purpose with no redundancy.

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?

Comprehensive coverage for an 11-parameter destructive tool: documents all operations, filtering strategies, and safety mechanisms. Missing return value description, but acceptable given no output schema per rubric guidelines.

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%, but description adds crucial semantic value by enumerating operation variants (clear vs set vs wrap) and mapping scope filter concepts to specific parameters. The JSON example demonstrates parameter relationships (operation + field + value + template_name).

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?

Description clearly states the tool applies a 'single field operation' to 'all matching content pages' using specific verbs (apply, set, prepend, append). The 'field' specificity distinguishes it from sibling 'bulk_update_content' which likely handles full content updates.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on using scope filters (content_ids, folder_path, etc.) to limit affected pages and emphasizes dry_run for previewing changes. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, the 'single field' framing implies use for targeted field edits versus broader bulk updates.

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