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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is known; the description adds real value by disclosing the needs_confirmation/approvalId flow and the conditional Ledger side effects that follow a status move. It stops short of describing reversibility or permissions, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 branches into status-name sourcing, legacy keys, Ledger conditionals, and the confirmation signal. Every sentence carries distinct operational information 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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation handshake and downstream tool routing well. It does not state what a successful response contains, but in the absence of an output schema this is a minor gap.

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 meaningfully clarifies the status/statusName relationship ('the old lane keys still work and land on that lane's default status') and directs where status names come from. This is more than the schema conveys about defaulting behavior.

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 precise verb (move) and resource (a change/opportunity) plus the target (a workspace status), and names the sibling compass_statuses_list for obtaining status names. A reader can distinguish it from compass_opportunities_update and other siblings 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?

Gives explicit routing: use statusName from compass_statuses_list, legacy lane keys still work; only experiments follow the Ledger, with named follow-ups (compass_opportunities_register_expectation, ledger_entries_settle) and the exact conditions that trigger them, while 'Other changes just move.' It tells the agent when to reach for other tools and when to do nothing further.

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