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

Annotations already flag destructive, non-idempotent, non-read-only, but the description goes further: it discloses the replacement semantics (not a merge), the conditional write of applications only "when it carries them", the all-or-nothing refusal on unreadable files ("nothing changes"), and the return payload including a changed flag. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot express.

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 destructive action, then usage, then failure mode, then return value. The final sentence packing the return shape into a list is a bit dense but every clause carries 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 destructive import with an opaque nested-object parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the failure behavior and the return fields, which the schema cannot. It stops short of stating prerequisites (e.g., whether the current record must exist or be valid, and whether the import is transactional across both stores).

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 the single parameter is already documented as "The whole file exactly as export_career_record produced it." The description's "when it carries them" adds a small hint that the applications section is optional inside the file, but otherwise it restates the schema. 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 ("Replace the stored career record") plus the cascade into job applications, which distinguishes it from save_career_record (partial save) and restore_career_version (version-based restore). An agent can pick this off the shelf without opening the 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?

"It serves restoring or moving in an export file" gives a clear use context, and the pairing with export_career_record implies the round-trip. It never explicitly excludes restore_career_version or save_career_record as the alternative when you have discrete fields rather than a file, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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