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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses idempotency behavior ("Exact duplicates are skipped"), a non-obvious side effect ("The shim rebuilds on its own afterwards"), the follow-up action ("read it again for the new report"), and a special return state ("May return `needs_confirmation`"). These are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

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 the guidance, side effect and return note in efficient order. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; minor room to separate content guidance from lifecycle behavior.

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 carries the return burden and does so by flagging the auto-rebuild/re-read cycle and the needs_confirmation state. A mutation tool with adequate but not exhaustive coverage; nothing critical to calling it correctly is 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 80%, so the schema already documents shimId, workspace and approvalId; the description correctly does not repeat those. It adds real meaning for the examples field (varied length/register, not paraphrases of the answer's name), but that is marginal against an already well-covered 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 and resource ("Adds example inputs to one answer") scoped precisely to one answer. It is clearly distinguishable from workbench_shim_add_answer and the get/list/create siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with add_answer, which is the closest sibling.

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 a concrete workflow prerequisite ("Read the shim first so new examples fit alongside the existing ones") and directs where to focus effort ("land where recall is low"). It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use this one, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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