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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses the record self-expires, ranks below official closures, is logged with the reason, is admin-only, has environment prerequisites, refuses with an explanation when unavailable, and reports via applied_by_live_writer whether a live writer actually applied it (false = stored but no road change).

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?

Dense but front-loaded with the highest-stakes information first (OPERATOR WRITE, ADMIN ONLY) followed by the never-call-without-approval warning. Every clause serves a purpose for a high-risk mutation tool, though the sentence is long and backtick-heavy.

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 needn't be enumerated, yet the description still explains the key output field applied_by_live_writer. Prerequisites, refusal behavior, expiry semantics, and ranking are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates constraints already in the schema (1-20 way_ids, 60-86400 ttl, 1-120 speed, default direction both, optional evidence_url) and the reason's audit-log purpose is also already in the schema, so it adds little beyond what structured fields provide.

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 precise verb+resource: asserts a short-lived closure or speed override on named OSM way_ids, with the exact assertion kinds, ttl, and direction scope. No sibling tool in the list does temporary closures, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Explicit when/when-not: it must never be called without a person's explicit approval of the exact closure in the conversation, with a prescribed draft-show-stop-confirm flow. It also states it is only available where sn-mcp runs locally with SN_CAMERA_INCIDENTS_ENABLED=true and SN_ADMIN_TOKEN set, and that it refuses elsewhere and says why.

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