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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that this is a pure write to Firestore ('追加する', additive), that hierarchy depth is arbitrary rather than a fixed 3 levels, and that decomposition logic is the caller's responsibility, not the tool's. Gaps remain around what is returned (created IDs?) and behavior on partial failure or permission errors.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the scope constraint, then the prerequisite routing in the final sentence. No sentence is redundant; every clause adds operational information.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with a rich nested schema but no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (write-only, additive, arbitrary depth, existing-map-only, parent selection). It stops short of describing the return value or failure modes, which an agent would need for error handling and follow-up edits.

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 mapId, nodes, and parentElementId semantics are already documented in the schema (including the null/omitted = top level rule). The description adds only that parentElementId should be derived from list_elements output, which is procedural guidance rather than parameter-level meaning — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: appending a hierarchical structure of nodes into an existing map, with the explicit clarification that this tool performs only the Firestore write and no structuring logic. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming list_elements (for choosing the parent) and create_map (for new maps).

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?

Explicitly says when to use: existing maps only, and 'create_map first' when a new map is needed. It also gives the precondition for choosing parentElementId — look at list_elements results — so the agent knows which sibling to call before invoking this tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: a mandatory user-confirmation step and an explicit prohibition on autonomous creation. It does not describe the success/duplicate/error behavior of the create itself, so it falls short of fully covering the write semantics.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place, with the primary action stated first and the guardrails (list_maps check, user confirmation) following in priority order. No filler or 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?

For a simple two-required-parameter create tool with no output schema, the definition covers the purpose, precondition, and confirmation workflow. It is nearly complete, though it could note what happens on success or when a duplicate title is used.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'title' and 'isTodo' are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no additional syntax or format detail beyond them. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource ('新しいマインドマップを1つ作成する'), specifying cardinality ('1つ'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_maps, edit_element, or delete_elements.

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 gives explicit routing rules: call only after list_maps confirms no matching map exists, and require a user-confirmed title proposal first. The alternative (list_maps) and the precondition are both named, leaving nothing to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses irreversibility (削除は取り返しがつかない), cascade deletion of descendants, and the dry-run semantics of confirmed, including that the dry run returns the paths and descendant counts. It stops short of stating permission requirements or limits on how many elements may be deleted at once.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and cascade scope, then the safety workflow. Every sentence carries required information and nothing is padded.

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 destructive, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing safety profile and explains what the dry-run returns (paths and descendant counts). An agent has everything needed to call it safely and correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents mapId, elementIds and the dry-run meaning of confirmed. The description restates the confirmed workflow rather than adding syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 is right.

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 and resource ('既存マップから要素を削除する') and immediately clarifies scope via the cascade rule (指定した要素とその配下(子孫)を丸ごと削除する). This clearly separates it from siblings like edit_element and move_element, which touch the same resources without removing them.

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?

Prescribes an explicit two-call workflow: first call with confirmed omitted/false to obtain the target list, present it to the user for explicit consent, then re-call with confirmed: true. The when-not condition (do not delete before consent) and the alternative call mode are both spelled out.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully scopes the mutation to only the detail field (implying other fields are untouched), but says nothing about overwriting existing content being irreversible, permission/auth requirements, or what the tool returns on success.

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, zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the disambiguation routing.

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 3-required-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and sibling routing well, and the schema fills in all parameter semantics. The only missing piece is behavioral detail about the write itself (overwrite semantics, success/failure response).

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%: mapId, elementId, and detail are all documented in the schema, including the 5000-character limit. The description mentions detail but adds no format or constraint information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: rewrites the body (detail) of a single element in an existing map. It also names the sibling tools that handle adjacent operations (auto_structure_thought, import_markdown_context, update_task_status), so the agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: element creation goes to auto_structure_thought or import_markdown_context, and check-state changes go to update_task_status. This is a clear when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-alternatives statement, leaving nothing to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses important non-obvious behavior: checkbox syntax is stripped and checked state is ignored when the destination is not a TODO map. It does not state the response shape, whether import is atomic, or how existing content is affected.

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-loads the core import behavior, then adds only relevant caveats about headings, checkboxes, and existing maps. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential quirks an agent needs: existing-map restriction, heading-as-element handling, and non-TODO checkbox stripping. It leaves some behavioral details unstated, but the full parameter schema fills in syntax and size constraints.

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 description coverage is 100%, so mapId, markdown, and parentElementId are already documented. The description adds useful import semantics such as heading handling and checkbox behavior, but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: it assembles Markdown of arbitrary depth and imports it into an existing map. It also clarifies that headings become elements, distinguishing the operation from create_map or edit_element.

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 clearly limits use to existing maps and explicitly routes new-map creation to create_map first. It does not cover other alternatives such as editing individual elements, but the primary when/when-not condition is stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the raw Firestore `checked` semantics (no ancestor-to-descendant propagation), the exact date formats and local-time interpretation, the permission-gated two-path behavior (real data for 'always allow' maps vs. a confirmation-prompt message otherwise), and the staleness caveat that in-app edits only appear after a re-call.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return-value details, then the confirmation protocol, then the freshness rule — each sentence carries a distinct, actionable constraint with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by describing the element tree, which fields are conditional, and the exact date encodings. The confirmation/authorization behavior and the stale-read warning cover everything an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds operational meaning beyond the schema text by explaining which maps yield real data versus a confirmation prompt, which is the actual reason `confirmed` exists. The two-step flow itself is largely mirrored from the schema description, keeping this from a 5.

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 and resource (returns all elements in a given map) and enumerates exactly what comes back: parent-child relations, checked state, due date, start date. Sibling tools like list_maps and delete_elements are clearly different operations, so an agent can route this without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says not to ask the user before calling, to call first without `confirmed`, and to re-call with `confirmed: true` only after the confirmation message appears and the user agrees. It also mandates re-calling rather than trusting memory whenever progress or status is asked about — the when-to-use condition is fully spelled out.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that results include both owned and shared maps, that 'viewer' role implies read-only with no write tools available, and that app-side edits are not reflected until this tool is re-called. It does not cover return ordering, pagination, or limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four sentences, entirely front-loaded with what is returned and the prerequisite that a call is needed before using mapId elsewhere. Each subsequent sentence adds a distinct, non-redundant constraint (shared-map visibility, viewer read-only, state freshness).

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything needed: return contents, the prerequisite sequencing relative to other tools, the shared-map permission caveat, and the freshness warning. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description usefully enumerates the fields returned (title, ID, TODO flag) even though they are not inputs.

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 and resource: returns all of the user's Matryoshka Mind Maps with title, ID, and TODO status. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list_elements (which lists elements within a map) and from create_map/delete_elements, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says to call this first to resolve existing maps and their IDs before passing mapId to other tools, and mandates re-calling whenever the user asks about state rather than relying on memory. It also states the write restriction when the caller's role on a shared map is 'viewer'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two important behaviors beyond the schema: the moved element's descendants travel with it, and moves are confined to the same map. It says nothing about permissions, what happens to the subtree's internal ordering, or failure conditions for invalid parent/after IDs, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 core action front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence adds genuine value by enumerating the two supported move types. Slightly more could be trimmed or reordered, but it is efficient and well-structured.

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 hierarchy-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics (subtree moves, same-map restriction, both move kinds) but omits error behavior, idempotency, and any post-move effect. The schema handles parameter detail, so this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 all four parameters (mapId, elementId, newParentElementId, afterElementId) are already documented in the schema, including the null-for-top-level and null-for-first-position semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (move) and resource (one element) with clear scope: within the same map, and the moved element carries its subtree with it. It also clarifies that both cross-hierarchy moves (promote/demote) and same-level reordering are covered, which meaningfully separates it from edit_element and delete_elements. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands at a strong 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 phrase 「これ1つで行える」 implicitly tells the agent this single tool covers both reordering and hierarchy changes, which is useful context for tool selection. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no named alternative, and no stated prerequisite (e.g., that IDs must come from list_elements). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two non-obvious traits: batch updates are allowed and parent dates are never inherited by children (they are independent). It says nothing about permissions, partial-failure behavior, or what a successful call 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?

Four short sentences with no filler; the operation is front-loaded and the inheritance caveat follows the core statement. Nothing needs trimming, though the list_elements pointer could be folded in more tightly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main semantic pitfalls (batch, independence, where to read current values) but leaves the agent without any notion of authorization, error handling, or result shape.

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 50%, and the description compensates partially by stating the updates array may hold one or many items. The due/start null-removes and omission-leaves-untouched semantics live only in the schema, and mapId receives no explanation beyond the schema text.

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 (attach/remove) and resource (element due and start dates), plus the batch scope ('1件でも複数件でもよい'). It is not explicitly distinguished from edit_element or update_task_status, so a sibling-differentiation claim would be overstated.

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?

Points the agent to list_elements for reading current dates, which is a genuine usage hint, but never says when this tool is preferred over edit_element or update_task_status for touching dates. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that a browser opens on the user's machine, that the user must approve/enter data there, that the call can return 'pending', and how to re-invoke with the same method. It does not cover timeout or what a fully successful response looks like, so it falls just short of exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and trigger, then the browser flow, then the method precondition, then the retry rule. It is dense but every sentence carries operational value; a small amount of repetition in the pending-retry sentence could be trimmed.

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 one-parameter interactive auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the whole lifecycle: when to call, how the browser interaction works, what 'pending' means, and how to verify completion. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic guidance: the method must be chosen by the user first, and 'email' specifically only opens an input page rather than accepting credentials via chat. That materially shapes how the 'method' enum should be used.

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 and resource (sign in to Matryoshka Mind Map) and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by naming the trigger condition: other tools returning 'not signed in'. An agent can select it without inspecting any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('ほかのツールが「サインインしていません」と返したとき'), a required precondition (ask the user which method before calling), and a prohibition (never collect email/password in conversation). It also gives the retry protocol when status is 'pending'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the single most non-obvious behavior: the tool does NOT reproduce the app's parent-check-cascades-to-children display behavior, only the specified elements are written. It omits error/permission/return behavior, but the key semantic trap is covered.

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?

Four sentences, all purposeful, with the purpose front-loaded. The cascade clarification and its remedy are a little repetitive but each earns its place by preventing a specific misuse.

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?

No output schema or annotations, but for a simple mutation tool the description covers what is mutated, the scope (single vs batch), and the key filtering/behavioral constraint. Missing only failure and permission semantics, which are minor here.

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 50% (the top-level 'updates' array lacks a description), but the prose compensates by explaining that 'updates' is the enumeration of target elements and that all desired elements must be listed. Combined with mapId/elementId descriptions referencing list_maps/list_elements, an agent can call it correctly.

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 and resource: rewriting the checked state of elements in a TODO map, and explicitly notes it handles one or many elements. It does not name a sibling tool (e.g. edit_element) to differentiate, but the scope statement is unambiguous.

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 clear operating context: use it when you want to change check state, and if you want children aligned you must enumerate every target element in 'updates'. It does not compare against alternatives like edit_element, but the cascade caveat is a real usage rule.

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