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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further by enumerating exactly what is destroyed — the bid call, the sprint, and the files the team added. It also discloses a non-obvious conditional gate (tenders in Bidding/Submitted/Won/Lost require a second confirmed call) and the account/workspace prerequisite.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then behavior, prerequisites, alternatives, and an example example — a sensible ordering with little waste. It is dense in the middle (the 'for good or until a change brings it back' clause is slightly convoluted), keeping it just short of ideal.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers everything else an agent needs: destructive scope, the confirmation round-trip, workspace/auth requirements, and sibling routing. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the conditional semantics of 'confirmed' through the confirmation example and paraphrases return_when as 'remove it until it gets a value', tying the enum to user intent. The inline example invocation shows how tender_reference and return_when combine.

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 ('taken off their team's Winquill pipeline') and immediately clarifies the two modes: permanent removal or conditional return. It explicitly names the siblings it is not (move_in_pipeline, record_bid_call), so an agent can separate it from adjacent pipeline operations without opening a schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user wants a tender taken off...'), quotes the natural user phrasing ('remove it until it gets a value'), and names two alternatives with the condition that selects them. The confirmation path is spelled out as an instruction ('confirm with the user and call again with confirmed').

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