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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real value by explaining the mechanism behind them: identical retries stay on the same revision, and content changes must be guarded with expectedRevision from a previous read. It stops short of saying what a revision overwrites, whether the previous content is recoverable, or any permission requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two behavioral facts that matter (retry idempotency, revision guard). No filler or restated field names.

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 prose, and the revision/idempotency semantics are covered. However, for a destructive 6-parameter write tool with zero schema description coverage, the description omits the meaning of the status enum (notably RETIRED) and any conflict-handling detail when expectedRevision does not match.

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, so the description carries the burden of documenting them. It only explains expectedRevision (and only its source, not its conflict behavior); deskId, topic, question, answer, and the APPROVED/RETIRED status enum are left entirely to the bare schema.

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 pair (store/revise) and the exact resource (an answer the user has already approved), which cleanly separates it from siblings like save_approved_commitment, save_refund_rule, and save_escalation_limit. An agent can identify the correct tool without opening the schema.

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 clear conditional guidance: revising a changed answer requires expectedRevision from a prior read, while identical retries are safe to repeat. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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