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

The annotations already mark this as a destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds important behavior beyond that: it goes out once, expires after 24 hours, and is version-guarded to the document state the person saw. It does not describe failure behavior when those constraints are not met, 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 front-loaded with the core action and remains compact across three sentences. The final sentence reinforces the key confirmation condition, though it slightly repeats the title and opening sentence.

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?

Given the output schema, annotations, and fully described parameters, the description covers the important invocation context: preview linkage, consent condition, one-time behavior, 24-hour window, and version matching. It does not explain error behavior if the window or version check fails, but otherwise it is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 the schema already explains both parameters. The description reinforces that the proposal id comes from the preview, but it does not discuss the optional project parameter beyond what the schema provides, making this adequate but not additive enough to exceed baseline.

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 names a specific action (hands out parts) and ties it to a prior preview and proposal id, so the confirming nature of the tool is clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as hand_out or confirm_send, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 a clear usage condition: only for parts the person has seen and said yes to, using the proposal id from the preview. It also states the operational limits (once, within 24 hours, only at the seen version), which implicitly exclude stale or already-completed cases, though it does not name alternatives.

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