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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive write, but the description adds meaningful side-effect context: 'It changes nothing else: no act, no brief, no outcome.' It also discloses PII handling ('emails and phone numbers are removed'), which is valuable beyond the 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and prerequisite. Every sentence carries operational value: confirmation gate, content rules, and side-effect scope.

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 two-parameter write tool with annotations and an output schema, this is complete. It covers the prerequisite, content constraints, PII sanitization, and what is not changed, so the agent can call it correctly.

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 both parameters: `text` is 'what they want STEMPA to do, in their words' with names/contact details stripped, and `confirmed_by_person` must be true only after the person agreed.

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: 'Log a feature request for the STEMPA team'. The scope is clear and distinguishable from sibling confirmation/grill/stempa tools, none of which handle feature requests.

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?

Explicitly provides the when-to-use condition: 'ONLY after the person said yes to your offer (confirmed_by_person true)'. The word ONLY also supplies the exclusion condition, leaving little ambiguity for the agent.

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