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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes beyond them with substantive behavioral detail: feedback attaches to the agent not the run, conditions all FUTURE generations, triggers immediate forced regeneration by default, and other runs pick up corrections later. This is exactly the extra context the bar rewards.

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 tightly-packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Dense but every sentence carries distinct behavioral information; no filler. Slightly heavy but earns its length given the tool's complexity.

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?

Given 9 params, nested objects, 100% schema coverage, and a destructive=false? no—destructive write with side effects, the description covers the temporal/persistence semantics (future generations, immediate regeneration) that the schema cannot express. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the agent-scoping semantics that motivate agentId's default behavior and the regeneration trigger that frames triggerRegeneration. Adds value on top of already-rich schema docs.

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: 'Record disagreement with a run insight.' Clear what the tool does and distinguishes from read tools like get_run_insights, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with regenerate_run_insights or batch_regenerate_insights which are adjacent operations.

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?

Explains the situation well: when the user disagrees with an insight and wants a correction that conditions future generations. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g. vs regenerate_run_insights), but context is clear.

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