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

Goes well beyond the annotations: disposable staging, immutable original/transformed bytes with dependency/installer provenance, explicit non-actions ('does not execute source, convert arbitrary HTML or mark it CueFrame compatible'), and the 'never force-overwrite authored work' safety rule. The commandId retry-identity note nuances idempotentHint=false rather than contradicting it, since dedupe only applies to a repeated identical commandId.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence is topical, but the prose is dense and jargon-heavy across roughly eight clauses, with some material (e.g., 'Changed source versions remain provenance-pending until exact adaptation bytes are captured') that reads as implementation trivia an agent must parse to extract the actionable rules.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers what the receipt owns and the follow-up inspection step. For a nested-object, open-world mutation the main residual gap is the lack of explicit routing against the sibling search/select/get tools.

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 50% schema coverage, the description compensates by enumerating the body fields and giving real semantics: 'Keep the snapshot and manifest digest exactly as observed' and 'native author sessions supply their replay-stable top-level commandId automatically.' The 'variables' object remains opaque, but the schema explicitly delegates it to describe_tool_input.

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 ('acquire a selected external candidate') and pins the mechanism ('pinned maintained installer in disposable staging'), which separates it from get_registry_item and search_registry_items. It never explicitly names a sibling, but the acquisition framing makes the operation distinct.

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 description gives sequencing ('Inspect the receipt with get_registry_acquisition, then author through existing admitted component/template operations'), which implies use after selection and before authoring. It never says when NOT to use it or how it differs from select_candidate / get_registry_item, so the selection logic is left to inference.

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