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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries extra weight. It discloses that the operation is advisory and that the state can be cleared by a fresh report_build_status, adding lifecycle context. It avoids contradicting 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 main action, and no filler. Every word contributes to understanding purpose and behavioral context.

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 simple advisory flagging tool with no output schema, the description covers core purpose and clearing behavior. It doesn't explain the significance of no required parameters or the return format, but the schema covers parameter meaning, and the absence of an output schema lowers that expectation.

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 most parameters (id, name, note, missing_files). The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Flag' with a concrete resource 'CODE DRIFT' and defines the condition ('mapped files no longer match the repo'). It distinguishes from siblings by noting the clearing mechanism via report_build_status.

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?

Description provides clear context that the tool is advisory and that report_build_status clears the flag, effectively guiding when to use this tool (to flag) vs. when to use the alternative (to clear). However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or broader alternative scenarios.

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