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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'Replace' wording is consistent with a full overwrite. Beyond annotations it adds genuinely useful behavior: the effects are holistic (a whole set is replaced), sub-workflow collapse semantics, and that the call 'May return `needs_confirmation`', which ties to the approvalId parameter. Auth/permission specifics are not stated.

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?

A single front-loaded paragraph that opens with the core action and never repeats the structured fields. It is dense and requires careful parsing, but every clause (effect semantics, sub-workflow collapse, projection step, confirmation) earns its place.

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 destructive, nested-schema mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers input provenance, per-effect semantics, the follow-up projection step, and confirmation behavior. It stops short of auth/permission or reversibility detail, but nothing critical to 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 coverage is 75% and the description adds real meaning beyond it: it defines the semantic intent of each effect enum value and supplies undocumented defaults (keepShare 0.25 for relax_gate, 0.5 for assist) and what reviewMinutes measures. The remaining covered params (workspace, approvalId, opportunityId) already carry schema descriptions.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Replace a change's effects') and immediately distinguishes itself by naming the sibling that supplies inputs (compass_workflow_steps) and the sibling that consumes the result (compass_workflow_rollup changeIds). An agent can tell this apart from compass_transformations_* and compass_changes_upsert without opening a schema.

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 establishes the workflow context explicitly: steps come from compass_workflow_steps, effects are set here, then the result is projected with compass_workflow_rollup changeIds. There is no explicit when-not or exclusion, but the sequencing across siblings gives clear operational guidance.

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