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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false, establishing this as a safe, non-destructive, workspace-local action. The description adds a useful auth precondition and a behavioral note that reasons 'stay unabsorbed' (not learned), but that phrase is vague and the idempotency implication is not elaborated.

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?

Three short sentences with low waste, but phrasing like 'the reasons stay unabsorbed' is cryptic and the key precondition is buried at the end rather than front-loaded.

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?

No output schema, a mutation with sparse annotations, and only one of two parameters documented. The description covers the signed-in requirement and the non-effect on text, but omits who can see the refusal and what happens to the offer afterwards, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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 50%: offer_id is documented in-schema (pointing to list_text_changes_offered) while words is not. The phrase 'with their words when they give any' clarifies that words is optional/accompanying, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema, but no format or length guidance is given.

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 (refuse) and resource (a change Tommo offered / text change), and the title reinforces it. It does not explicitly name the counterpart sibling take_a_text_change, but the verb scope is clear enough to distinguish the action from listing or accepting offers.

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 one precondition ('Only a signed-in person refuses one') but never states when to refuse versus accepting (take_a_text_change) or when to inspect offers first (list_text_changes_offered). Usage is implied by the verb 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.