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

Annotations already declare write, destructive, and idempotent hints; the description adds semantics on top: LOCKED means 'established', locked entries are immutable here, and 'Identical retries leave history unchanged' explains the idempotency nuance. It does not explain what a destructive overwrite of a non-locked existing entry actually does, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and precondition before the immutability and revision rules. Every clause carries information, though the state-model sentences could be ordered slightly more cleanly.

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 not be described, and the description covers the approval, locking, and revision-conflict behavior well. The remaining gap is parameter-level detail, which the near-empty schema descriptions fail to backstop.

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 7 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only clarifies status (explaining just the LOCKED value of four) and expectedRevision (must come from retrieval). title, content, tags, programId, and revisionReason are left entirely undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Save a learner-facing promise') and immediately scopes it with a precondition ('only after the owner approves it'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling revise_approved_fact, so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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?

It states when to use it (after owner approval), when not to (locked promises cannot be changed here), and names the alternative tool (revise_approved_fact) with the condition that selects it. The expectedRevision requirement for existing entries is also given as a usage rule.

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