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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: only passed fields change, the prior version is retained whole, deciders is a full replacement while linkTasks/unlinkTasks are additive, and the call requires permission to change tasks. These are exactly the behavioral traits the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints cannot convey.

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-loads the core action, then layers the constraint, the replace-vs-add distinction, and the alternative in tight sentences. Every sentence carries operational information; nothing is filler.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical behaviors an agent must know to call it safely. It omits any notion of the return value or confirmation behavior, a minor gap given the annotations already signal idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 75% schema description coverage the schema already documents most params, but the description adds non-obvious semantics the schema does not: deciders replaces the whole list, linkTasks/unlinkTasks add and remove without disturbing others, and supersedes is the sanctioned path instead of rewriting. It does not touch the remaining params, so not a 5.

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 ('Change a decision by ref') immediately, and the scope (field-level partial update, version history preserved) distinguishes it from fenbs_add_decision and fenbs_delete_decision among its siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool for a substantive change to a decided decision ('record a new one with supersedes rather than rewriting history'), and states the hard precondition that a ref alone is refused. No inference needed.

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