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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds substantial context beyond that: no recipient/shared/project/document body is accepted, retries must reuse a stable request_id and identical payload, "queued/sent is not human receipt," and notices are immutable once created. This explains the irreversible-write behavior implied by destructiveHint rather than contradicting it.

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 critical constraints are front-loaded, but the body is a dense run-on with nested parentheticals about URL query ordering and fragment rules that could be tightened. Several clauses restate the same "use real IDs, not invented ones" idea twice.

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-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers workflow gates, idempotency, immutability and where to check status afterward. What it omits is the meaning of the remaining required fields (artifact_kind, occurrence_key, artifact_sha256) and any hint of the response shape for a successful queue.

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 0% across 7 required params, and the description richly documents only artifact_url (allowed query keys, Library file_id form, messageId UUID form, prohibition on invented IDs) and request_id (stable across retries). artifact_kind's agenda/wrapup enum, occurrence_key, artifact_sha256, title and preview are never explained, so half the schema remains ambiguous.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("notify only your own Dot that a private meeting artifact is ready") and immediately scopes it against the sibling concept of a shared project message. An agent can distinguish this from send_message or a shared-notice tool 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?

Gives explicit preconditions ("Use only after the user requested this notification flow and the artifact was saved and read back"), an explicit prohibition ("Never notify automatically merely because a notification arrived"), and routes agents to the alternative ("Existing notices are immutable; read their status instead") which maps to get_owner_artifact_notification.

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