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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the state precondition (pending vs. confirmed) and a trust constraint on confirming. However, it says nothing about consequences — whether 'revoke' severs lineage, deletes data, or is reversible — nor about side effects on the child agent or failure modes.

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. The role and available actions land first, and the safety caveat follows. Every clause contributes a distinct constraint.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers who may call it and on what state, but leaves out the aftermath of each action and what the call reports back. Adequate to invoke correctly, not adequate to predict effects.

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 only 33%: action has a bare enum with no descriptions and child_id has only a regex. The description compensates for action by binding each enum value to a concrete state transition (pending → confirm/reject, confirmed → revoke), which is real meaning beyond the enum. child_id's format is left entirely to the schema.

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?

The description names three concrete verbs (confirm, reject, revoke) applied to a specific resource (an agent's pending parent declaration / a confirmed child), plus the actor role ('As the parent'). That role framing implicitly separates it from declare_parent (the child-side action) and list_children, but neither sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It maps actions to object states: confirm/reject apply to a *pending* declaration, revoke applies to a *confirmed* child. It also gives an authorization precondition ('Only confirm agents you actually created or run'). It stops short of naming alternatives or saying what to do if the declaration is already resolved.

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