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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, destructive, idempotent write, and "Store" is consistent with that. The description adds the approval precondition and a wording constraint, but it never says what an existing promise for the same plan is replaced with, nor how expectedRevision/conflict behavior works despite destructiveHint=true.

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?

The purpose and the approval constraint are front-loaded, which is good. However, two of the six sentences are pure tautology ("SHARED_QUEUE is a shared queue. DEDICATED_AGENT is a dedicated agent.") and add no information the enum values don't already convey.

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. But for a 7-parameter destructive write, the description omits replace/overwrite semantics and expectedRevision concurrency, which an agent needs to call it safely.

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 carries the full burden. It only glosses staffingKind ("SHARED_QUEUE is a shared queue" restates the enum rather than explaining it) and hints at statement's role; catalogId, planId, name, status, and expectedRevision are entirely undocumented, leaving the concurrency parameter opaque.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Store a staffing promise") scoped to "one customer plan," which is clear. It does not compare itself to siblings like list_staffing_promises or save_customer_plan, but the purpose itself is 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 states a real precondition (the promise must be "explicitly approved") and an explicit exclusion ("Do not save a dedicated agent the user did not approve"). It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the cases it excludes, so it is clear context without full routing.

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