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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to add context — yet it never says what is consumed or destroyed, that credits/spend are involved, or how wait_seconds polling behaves. "Under an AWT cap" gestures at a budget constraint but leaves the term and its consequences unexplained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but its brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — the one line carries too little to act on.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with 7 undocumented parameters and no output schema needs considerably more than one sentence. Missing are required-parameter meaning (workspace, idempotency_key), return behavior, and spend semantics.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It vaguely maps to agent, message, operator_task and max_awt, but says nothing about workspace, idempotency_key, wait_seconds, or the meaning of the operator_task enum values.

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 verb ("Quote/run") and a resource ("a teammate or operator"), which is enough to tell it apart from agent_runs_get/list/cancel at a coarse level. However "Quote/run" is ambiguous phrasing and "AWT cap" is undefined jargon, so the actual effect is not crisp.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as agent_triggers_save, agent_runs_list, or agent_runs_cancel, and no preconditions are given. The agent has to infer the usage context from the name alone.

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