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

With annotations only declaring readOnly=false, openWorld=false, destructive=false, the description adds real behavioral context: the record lands in the board's first status by default, and the call may return `needs_confirmation` requiring the agent to summarize and wait for approval. That approval-loop disclosure is meaningful and not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information (what to record, anchoring rule, default status, experiment condition, approval flow), with the core action front-loaded. No filler or repetition.

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 9-param creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: default status placement, anchoring, the experiment flag, and the needs_confirmation return path. It is largely complete, though it could say more about what an accepted opportunity returns or how it relates to compass_opportunities_propose.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic nuance beyond the schema: the default status behavior for statusName, and the intent condition for `experiment` (only when measured against the Ledger). It does not add meaning for label, tags, links, or description, which rely entirely on the schema.

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+resource ("Record a change") and enumerates the kinds of changes (fix, chore, new step, experiment), which is more concrete than the title alone. It does not, however, clearly differentiate this create tool from close siblings like compass_opportunities_propose or compass_changes_upsert, leaving the agent to infer the 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?

Gives actionable conditions: anchor to a workflow page "when one fits," otherwise leave unanchored, and set `experiment` only when the user wants it measured against the Ledger. It routes to compass_pages_list and compass_statuses_list for lookups. It stops short of explaining when to prefer this over compass_opportunities_propose/accept, so no explicit alternative selection is stated.

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