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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial beyond that: the form-vs-chat fallback behavior, the instruction to report when no form appeared, the secret-handling guardrail, and the explicit note that answers are not launch approval. This is rich behavioral context an agent could not infer from the structured fields.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by behavior and guardrails. No filler, though the closing warning sentence is somewhat tangential to the collection mechanics.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the behavioral flow is well covered. However, with 0% schema description coverage on 6 parameters, the definition leaves parameter meaning largely unexplained, which is the main completeness gap.

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% across 6 parameters (task, scenario, stopCondition, testId, blockId, expectedRevision), and the description only vaguely alludes to 'up to two missing wording fields' without mapping them to the scenario/stopCondition params or explaining required IDs and revision. It does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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: 'Collect up to two missing wording fields for an existing task.' This is clear and actionable, though the tool name 'prepare_test_block' suggests block/test-block preparation while the description frames it around task wording fields, which creates mild ambiguity about the object being operated on.

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 real usage context – use forms when supported, otherwise ask the returned questions in chat and report that no form appeared – and routes to the correct follow-up ('save accepted wording with update_task'). It does not state when not to use this versus siblings, but the operational flow is explicit.

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