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

Annotations declare destructiveHint/readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, but the description goes well beyond: it names the state mutation (moves to closed, sets proven movement), records the confirming user/date and one activity event, states account/credential restrictions apply, describes conflict refusal on invalid state, and explains the non-idempotent retry hazard ('repetition can fail its state guard or create another event'). Rich behavioral context.

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 purpose, then requirements, then side effects, then edge-case retry guidance. It is dense and lengthy, but nearly every clause carries load for a destructive, non-idempotent operation; only minor trimming would be possible.

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?

Though an output schema exists, the description still summarizes return detail (saved detail, max ten evidence entries, ten prompt references, cursor continuation). Combined with preconditions, side effects, and retry semantics, nothing an agent needs 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% and both required UUIDs are documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Confirm a ready recommendation as proven') and immediately enumerates the precondition state. This distinguishes it from siblings like approve_recommendation or start_recommendation_work, which perform different lifecycle transitions.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions (movement ready, readiness date, no confirmation date, approved/underway) and explicitly states what it does NOT do ('does not manufacture readiness or rerun analysis'). Adds retry guidance routing to get_recommendation. It stops short of naming the sibling actions it is distinct from (e.g., approve_recommendation), which is the only gap.

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