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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds significant value beyond those annotations: it explains that closing is irreversible and scores/posts to Ledger, that fielding spends credit, and that it may return 'needs_confirmation'. That is genuine behavioral disclosure of cost and irreversibility, though the confirmation flow is only hinted at, not detailed.

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?

The text is dense and front-loads the primary effect (closes + fields). However, it crams multiple distinct concepts (scoring, Ledger posting, credit spending, irreversibility, schedule semantics, return value) into run-on sentences without clear separation, making it hard to scan.

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?

This is a destructive, multi-effect mutation tool with no output schema and incomplete parameter documentation. The description does not explain the confirmation/approval workflow, what happens to active participant chats, or how approvalId ties into needs_confirmation. For a tool with this complexity, the missing parameter and workflow detail is a significant 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 description coverage is only 33% (only the 'workspace' parameter is documented in the schema). The description adds zero information about the required 'seriesId' or the 'approvalId' parameter, which is a critical gap since approvalId is presumably central to the 'needs_confirmation' flow. The description must compensate for the low coverage but does not.

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?

The description states a specific compound action: closing the current wave and fielding the next one from the series' frozen instrument. The verb+resource is distinctive and not shared by any sibling, though the product-specific terminology ('wave', 'field', 'frozen instrument') is somewhat opaque without additional domain context.

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?

States a clear condition ('Manual launches don't move the schedule clock') but doesn't map the tool against sibling tools like prism_panels_run or prism_series_create. It mentions a side effect warning that implies careful timing, but doesn't say when to select this over manual panel runs.

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