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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: proposals wait for a human unless a serves link ties the workflow (then kept at once), and dedup/idempotency ('steps already tied or proposed aren't proposed again, so it's safe to run as the map grows'). Annotations only cover read/write and destructiveness, so this human-confirmation workflow is genuinely new information.

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, but the long opening sentence is overloaded with nested parentheticals ('(or VALUE)', '(or where the business lives the value)') that hurt readability. The subsequent sentences are efficient, but it is denser than it needs to be.

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 covers the mutation semantics, the confirmation flow, and idempotency well enough for correct invocation. Return format is left implicit, which is the main remaining 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% with both parameters documented, so baseline 3 applies. The description clarifies that pageId is a PRIORITY or VALUE page, which is a marginal semantic addition already implied by the schema description.

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: reads every mapped workflow against one PRIORITY/VALUE and proposes the steps that move it. This is clearly distinguishable from generic page/step siblings, though the parenthetical hedging ('or VALUE', 'or where the business lives the value') slightly muddies the single core action.

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 preconditions: 'Use it after a priority is named and workflows are mapped, or when someone asks what moves a priority.' Clear when-to-use context, but it never names an alternative tool (e.g. why not compass_step_suggestions_build), so it stops short of full routing.

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