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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true/readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that by flagging the two-phase confirmation flow ('May return `needs_confirmation`'), which changes how an agent must sequence calls. It stops short of saying whether prior wording is recoverable or what permissions are needed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the alternative and prerequisite, then the return caveat. Every clause carries information and there is no 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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, routing, id sourcing, and the needs_confirmation return path with annotations carrying the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around permission requirements and partial-update behavior, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including the workspace and approvalId mechanics. The description only restates which content fields are editable (wording/rationale/resolution) already implied by the schema, adding little new meaning. 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 ('Edits an open question's wording, rationale, or suggested resolution') and explicitly contrasts with the nearest sibling: 'Closing a gap is compass_gaps_resolve, not this.' An agent can distinguish this from compass_gaps_resolve and compass_gaps_create without opening their schemas.

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 the when ('sharpening a vague question or fixing one you phrased badly'), the when-not with a named alternative ('Closing a gap is compass_gaps_resolve'), and the prerequisite for the id ('Gap ids come from compass_gaps_list'). Nothing is left to inference.

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