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

Annotations declare destructive and idempotent, and the description is consistent with both, adding meaningful behavior: an approval precondition, that ALLOW grants the wording, and that DENY refuses a refund and records the denial script. It doesn't discuss the effect of re-saving (expectedRevision/locking) or the retired status path, but it adds real context 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the approval precondition, and each sentence carries distinct information. Slightly fragmentary in flow but no wasted words.

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 description covers the semantic heart of decision/remedy/matchTerms. But for an 8-parameter, destructive, revision-guarded mutation with 0% schema coverage, the missing guidance on windowDays, status, and expectedRevision leaves it only partially complete.

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 coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate but only partly does: it explains matchTerms' intent, remedy's downstream role, and the ALLOW/DENY meaning of decision. It says nothing about deskId, name, status, windowDays, or expectedRevision, leaving several parameters semantically 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Store a refund rule') and adds a key qualifier: the rule must be explicitly user-approved. This clearly separates it from read-side siblings like list_refund_rules. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 domain constraints on when a rule is valid ('matchTerms must name a specific situation', 'the word refund alone is not a rule'), which is genuinely useful routing logic. However, it never says when to call this versus save_approved_commitment or save_escalation_limit, nor states prerequisites like an existing desk.

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