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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false); the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: advisory-only semantics, explicit 'no notification is sent to notify_roles or anyone else', the scope-specificity resolution rule, and the fact that severity acts as a floor that scales with gap size and facility criticality.

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?

Four sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the behavioral caveats. Slightly dense with the precedence and severity-scaling rules packed into single sentences, but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and a mutation that produces a stored rule, the description covers the important behavioral surface (advisory nature, precedence, severity floor, auth scope). It omits what the create call returns and whether re-creating a duplicate scope is rejected or replaces an existing rule, which an agent creating rules would want to know.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: severity as a minimum/floor rather than a fixed value, the precedence semantics of scope_type/scope_ref combinations, and confirmation that notify_roles is recorded without triggering delivery. It does not restate the enum or format details already in the schema.

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 specific verb and resource — recording the organizational statement of what a missed LoS target means — and frames it as advisory content shown on the Status screen, which separates it from create_los_measure, create_los_proposed_target, and create_infrastructure_los_target in the sibling set.

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?

Explains the operating context (shown when a matching target is breached, no notification sent, matching precedence among overlapping scopes) which tells the agent when this rule takes effect. It does not explicitly contrast with update_los_consequence or state prerequisites beyond the write scope, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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