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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by naming exactly what is destroyed (the forward record) and why the operation is irreversible ('a forward test cannot be paused and resumed'), which is critical context an agent cannot derive from the schema or annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and consequence, followed by the rationale. Every sentence carries information and none is redundant.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing context: irreversibility and the reset-to-zero consequence of a subsequent promote. The only gap is the undocumented 'id' parameter, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 0% and the description never mentions the single required 'id' parameter, so it does not explain what the id identifies or what format it takes. The phrase 'the forward record' indirectly hints at the target, but the compensation is weak; a 3 reflects minimal viable coverage for a one-parameter tool.

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 ('Stop forward testing') plus the material consequence ('DISCARD the forward record'). It also differentiates itself from the sibling promote_strategy by explaining what promoting again does, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

The description makes the use case clear (ending a forward test) and explains the alternative path's behavior ('Promoting again starts from zero at the new date'), which implicitly routes the agent between demote and promote. It never states an explicit 'when to use this vs X' rule or prerequisites, so it falls short of a 5.

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