editor_has_member

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by warning that the editor context mutates independently, i.e. results are point-in-time and may go stale. It does not state the return value (boolean) explicitly, which matters slightly since there is no output schema.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the actionable state condition (current editor context) is front-loaded and the staleness caveat follows immediately.

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 single-parameter existence check with no output schema, the definition covers what is checked and the key volatility caveat, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Only the implied boolean return is left unstated.

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 one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains the path format and warns against guessing entity IDs. The description reinforces "exact property path" but adds no format syntax or examples beyond the schema, 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 ("check whether") and a precise resource ("an exact property path exists in the CURRENT editor context"). This distinguishes it from editor_read_member (returns the value) and editor_selection, though it never names a sibling to contrast against explicitly.

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 caveat that the editor selection/context "can change independently" implies this is a freshness/validity pre-check rather than a persistent query, which hints at when to call it. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over editor_read_member or how to react to a false result.

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