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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses the critical non-execution behavior and the host restriction, which are important for safe use. It doesn't mention return behavior or persistence, but the key side effect (append) and non-side-effect (non-execution) are clear.

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?

A single sentence that packs essential information: scope, action, resource, and a critical safety note. No wasted words, and the most important detail ('does NOT execute') is front-loaded.

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 simple queue appending tool, the description covers the key points: what it does, its scope, and its non-execution behavior. It doesn't describe return values or follow-up steps, but given the simplicity and 100% schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters, so the description adds little beyond the schema. 'Append a proposed action' maps to the 'action' parameter, but other parameters (meta, source, target) are already well-described in the schema, so no additional meaning is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Append') and names the resource ('local review queue'), and clarifies it does NOT execute. This distinguishes it from execution tools and the sibling list_queued_actions, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context with '[Local ops]' and 'Operator host only', and the explicit 'does NOT execute' implies when to use it (queueing instead of executing). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so a small gap remains.

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