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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds real context beyond that: it drafts up to three flows in Workbench ('builds', each 'drafting' until ready), enforces a once-per-level rule, and can return a needs_confirmation envelope. This goes well past what the annotations convey.

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?

Effectively a single dense sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('Creates a Change...'), followed by supporting detail. Compact and largely waste-free, though the run-on nature makes it slightly harder to parse at a glance.

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 non-destructive mutation tool with annotations present, no output schema, and fully documented params, the description covers the key behavioral outcomes (drafting flows, per-level constraint, confirmation return). Nothing critical for correct invocation appears 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (level enum, workspace, approvalId, priorityPageId). The description reinforces that approvalId ties to a needs_confirmation result and that level drives which flows get built, but adds little syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 — 'Creates a Change from one level of a priority's transformations' — with the source level and priority clearly identified. It is distinguishable in intent from siblings like compass_changes_upsert, but it never names or contrasts an alternative explicitly.

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?

Provides an implied usage constraint ('Only a level that fits, once per level') and notes that the tool 'May return needs_confirmation', which hints at the confirmation flow. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this versus compass_changes_upsert or the transformations_* siblings.

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