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

Annotations declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, but the description adds the concurrency and retry semantics that annotations cannot express: conflicting revision fails without overwriting, identical retry returns the saved case, and updates require caseId+expectedRevision from get_business_cases. It also discloses the binding semantics of approvedReplies and the wording fields (stored wording, not suggestions).

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the approval precondition and the primacy of approvedReplies come first, then optional wording rules, then update/concurrency mechanics. Every sentence carries a constraint, though the wording-field rules are somewhat repetitive across three similar sentences.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the safety-critical behavior an agent needs: approval gating, optional-field omission, binding reply wording, withdrawal via CLOSED, and optimistic-concurrency/retry handling. Return values can be inferred from the output schema.

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 carry the load. It explains approvedReplies, refundWording, replacementWording, timelineWording, status, caseId, and expectedRevision in operational terms, but leaves businessId, reviewText, platform, and reviewerName unaddressed.

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 specific verbs and resource: 'Store or revise one review case', plus the gating condition of user approval of exact public reply wording. It distinguishes itself from get_business_cases by naming it as the source of caseId/expectedRevision, though it does not explicitly contrast with check_public_reply.

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 explicit when-to-use ('only after the user approves the exact public reply wording') and when-not conditions ('Leave one out, or send it blank, when that offer is not approved'), plus the CLOSED status trigger for withdrawal. An agent knows exactly when to call this versus reading cases.

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