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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that assumptions are recorded and the brief remains visible as SKIPPED, which helps an agent understand the effect.

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 description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and adds only necessary effect details. No sentence is wasted.

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?

The tool is simple, annotations cover safety/mutation traits, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. It gives enough context to understand the operation, though it could more explicitly document the required id parameter.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that assumptions are one-line strings and implies the id refers to the brief being marked, but it does not explicitly name or describe the id parameter or clarify assumptions array constraints.

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 action: skip the questions, record assumptions, and mark the brief SKIPPED. It clearly distinguishes the tool from the answer-oriented sibling by emphasizing skipping rather than responding.

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 phrase 'Skip the questions' establishes a clear condition for use and implies an alternative to answering, though it does not explicitly name grill_answer or state exclusions. The context is sufficient but not fully explicit about when not to use it.

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