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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuine value beyond them by clarifying that clientToken is the retry-dedup mechanism and that preconditions must be checked, which matters precisely because idempotentHint is false. It stops short of describing failure or side-effect specifics.

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 tight sentences, mutation semantics front-loaded, no filler. Every clause carries actionable content: the contract requirement, precondition respect, and the clientToken retry rule.

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 input side is covered by a 100%-documented schema. The gap is jargon like 'available complete contract' being undefined and no pointer to which sibling yields one — a meaningful omission for a polymorphic meta-tool whose input shape is dynamic.

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 the schema already documents capability, input and clientToken, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces the retry-only-on-identical-input rule and the 'available complete contract' constraint on the id, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Run one state-changing capability', which is clearly the execution counterpart to the discovery siblings (capability_catalogue/describe/query/search). It doesn't name any sibling explicitly, so the boundary is inferred from the read-vs-write split rather than stated.

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?

Provides one concrete usage rule — reuse clientToken only when retrying the identical mutation — and mentions respecting preconditions. However, it never says how to obtain an 'available complete contract' (presumably via capability_describe), and gives no when-not-to-use guidance, so the routing to discovery siblings is left implied.

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