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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the terminal-state safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: gaps you raised close without a card, while a person-written question requires their approval — an authorization workflow not encoded in the annotations or schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its two outcomes. The middle 'Keep the registry honest' sentence is mildly exhortative but carries the when-to-use guidance, so it earns its place; nothing dangles.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, status semantics, and the approval prerequisite. It does not describe the success response or reversibility, but the annotations plus 100% schema coverage leave the agent adequately equipped.

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 gapId, status, workspace, approvalId, and resolution are all documented in the schema. The description reinforces the ANSWERED-with-resolution relationship and the approvalId flow but adds little beyond what the schema already states, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb (Closes/resolve) and resource (a gap = open question), and enumerates the two terminal outcomes ANSWERED and DISMISSED with their meanings. It clearly conveys the terminal-state nature, but never names the adjacent sibling compass_gaps_update, so an agent must infer the resolve-vs-update boundary.

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 says when to act — resolve gaps as their answers land, explicitly listing sources (interview, doc, or the user) and the DISMISSED case when it proves irrelevant. It lacks explicit 'instead of' routing to siblings, but the trigger conditions are clear.

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