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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond those: LOCKED status meaning, immutability of locked entitlements here, expectedRevision requirements for existing entries, and unchanged history on identical retries. It does not fully clarify the scope of destructive behavior, but the added context is substantial.

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 description is dense but front-loaded: it starts with the core action and approval condition, then adds key constraints. Every sentence carries operational meaning, with no filler or repeated schema information.

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 and annotations exist, so return values and safety hints are covered elsewhere. However, for a seven-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete because it omits semantics for most input fields.

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%, so the description must compensate for seven parameters. It explains expectedRevision and touches on status via LOCKED, but leaves accountId, title, content, tags, revisionReason, and the rest of the status enum unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: saving an entitlement the customer already has. It distinguishes this tool from revise_approved_fact by saying locked entitlements cannot be changed here and must be revised elsewhere. It also explicitly warns against inventing entitlements.

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 gives explicit conditions: only after the owner approves the exact wording, existing entries require expectedRevision from retrieval, and locked entries must use revise_approved_fact. The warning 'Do not invent an entitlement the customer does not have' further constrains when not to use it.

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