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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds genuine context by disclosing the 'needs_confirmation' return path, but it never explains why an edit is destructive (e.g. what prior wording is overwritten) nor the approval requirement behind the destructive hint, which is the notable gap.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then exclusions, then id provenance and the confirmation behavior. Every clause earns its place with 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 6-param mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, alternative, id source, and the confirmation flow. It stops short of explaining the destructive nature of the edit or the workspace/token rules that the schema mentions, and with no output schema it only names 'needs_confirmation' rather than describing returns, but it is nearly sufficient.

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, question, rationale, workspace, approvalId, and suggestedResolution are all documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the field set and the provenance of gapId, adding nothing on syntax or format beyond what the schema already provides, which is the expected baseline.

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 (Edits) and resource (an open question's wording, rationale, or suggested resolution), enumerating exactly which fields change. It names the sibling it is not (compass_gaps_resolve) so an agent can distinguish editing from closing without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('for sharpening a vague question or fixing one you phrased badly') and an explicit when-not, routing closing to compass_gaps_resolve. It also tells the agent where the required gapId comes from (compass_gaps_list), leaving nothing to inference.

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