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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description goes further by labeling the action 'state-changing', requiring prior authorization, and tying invocation to credit impact — context the annotations do not carry. It stops short of saying what happens to the quote after consumption or whether retries are safe, so it is not fully transparent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by the behavioral constraint and the boundary of the tool's scope. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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?

The prerequisite chain (inspect → approve → start) and the browser-only follow-ups cover most of what an agent needs. With no output schema, a note on how to observe progress afterwards (get-documentation-update-status exists as a sibling) would have closed the remaining loop.

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 100% and both parameters already document their source (space_id via list-spaces, review_quote from inspect-documentation-update). The description's 'after authorization' and 'quoted review' reinforce the approval gate but add no new parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('starts the quoted review' of a documentation update) and explicitly separates itself from inspect-documentation-update, which must run first. An agent can select this over the many generate-* siblings because the description names the quote-and-credit prerequisite that no other tool shares.

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 an explicit trigger ('when the user explicitly asks to start... after inspecting its quote and credit impact'), an explicit exclusion ('does not accept changes'), and names where the excluded actions live ('change decisions, resume and end remain browser flows'). The alternative path is inspect-documentation-update, implied by the wording 'after inspecting its quote'.

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