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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the approval precondition and the downstream consequence via evaluate_customer_update. However, it never explains the destructive/idempotent nature the annotations assert, nor what the optimistic-concurrency behavior implies, so it adds only partial value over the structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the reason, then the exclusion. No filler or repetition.

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, and the mutation precondition is covered. But for a destructive, non-idempotent-flagged write with 0% parameter documentation, the description omits parameter meaning and doesn't clarify the destructive/concurrency semantics an agent needs before calling.

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 6 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it only loosely maps 'timeline or workaround' to the kind enum. It says nothing about status (APPROVED/RETIRED), expectedRevision, name length limits, or boardId, leaving half the required parameters 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?

States a concrete verb (Store) and resource (timeline or workaround statement) and ties the purpose to the sibling evaluate_customer_update, which the statement must satisfy. It is distinguishable from siblings like save_approved_cause, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 a clear precondition (the user must have explicitly approved it) and explicit exclusions (do not save an ETA, do not save an unapproved workaround). It lacks a direct comparison to sibling save tools, but the when-not guidance is concrete.

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