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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations cannot: the operation requires client-owner authorization and is cryptographically bound to the specific previewed handoff, meaning a stale or mismatched review cannot be approved. It does not spell out the outcome of a successful approval versus a downstream apply step.

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 filler, with the core action stated first and the prerequisite second. Every clause conveys actionable 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 a 4-parameter, fully described, annotated tool with an output schema, the definition covers the essentials: authorization, fingerprint provenance, and the exact-match guarantee. The only omission is whether approval is terminal or must be followed by a separate apply/update action, which the sibling list suggests exists.

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 every parameter (including the fingerprint pattern and expectedRevision's rejection condition) is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the fingerprint comes from preview_handoff but adds no new format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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: 'Records the client owner approving the exact staff handoff they reviewed.' The word 'records' plus 'approving' makes clear this is a write that captures an approval decision, distinct from sibling preview actions. It stops just short of explicitly contrasting itself with agency_installation_preview_handoff, though 'the exact ... they reviewed' implies the ordering.

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 a clear prerequisite chain: the caller must have the client owner's consent and the fingerprint returned by preview_handoff, which effectively routes the agent to call preview first. It does not state when-not to use it or what happens if approval is attempted without a fresh preview, leaving a small inference gap.

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