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

Annotations already declare write, destructive, and idempotent behavior, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: locked rules stay locked until owner revision, existing entries need expectedRevision, and identical retries leave history unchanged. It does not contradict the annotations, though it does not spell out the destructive effect of an overwrite.

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 front-loaded with the core action and decision semantics, and every sentence adds a behavioral or validation rule. It is dense but not bloated, though a little repetition around owner approval could be trimmed.

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?

The description is adequate for purpose and key constraints, and the output schema and annotations relieve it of return-value and safety detail. However, with 0% schema description coverage on eight parameters and no sibling routing, several invocation details remain unclear.

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% for eight parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains decision FORBIDDEN/NONE and mentions expectedRevision for existing entries, but leaves accountId, tags, terms, title, status values, and revisionReason 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('forbidden concession' or the rule that none is approved), and distinguishes the two decision modes. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from sibling tools such as record_current_entitlement or record_renewal_offer, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool via owner-approved decisions and warns 'Do not invent a concession' and that existing entries require expectedRevision. It never states when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose for a different kind of record.

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