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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false); the description adds substantial behavior beyond that — exact duplicates are silently skipped, the shim rebuilds asynchronously on its own, the shim must be re-read for the new report, and a `needs_confirmation` path exists. That is exactly the mutation/confirmation detail an agent needs.

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 the core action, then guidance, then the confirmation caveat. Sentences are dense but each carries distinct information; the middle exemplar sentence is long but earns its length by defining the value contract.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers the post-call state (rebuild, re-read, possible needs_confirmation). Combined with 80% schema coverage and annotations, an agent can call and handle the result correctly; only the absence of an explicit alternative-routing statement keeps it from a 5.

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 80%, so the params are largely documented. The description still adds real meaning: what a good value for `examples` looks like (varied length, register, specifics, distinct from other answers, never paraphrases of the answer's name), which the schema's minLength/maxItems constraints cannot convey.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Adds example inputs to one answer'), which cleanly separates it from sibling workbench_shim_add_answer. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, but the resource scoping ('one answer') makes the target unambiguous.

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 concrete operating context: read the shim first so examples fit alongside existing ones and 'land where recall is low', which tells the agent both sequencing and intent. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives to add_answer.

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