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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it limits passages to at most three, requires verbatim copying, and explains that later changes bring the part back to the person.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core action and constraints. It is dense but mostly earns its length, with only minor awkwardness in phrasing such as 'as it does a part handed to them.'

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 full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the essential missing behavioral context about future change notifications. It does not cover every edge case, but it is complete enough for an agent to call the tool 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 project, document, passages, says, passage, and section. The description mainly repeats those constraints and adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 action and resource: keeping document passages as someone's own part. It also distinguishes the scope from parts that were handed to the person, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool.

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 phrase 'nobody handed this person' implies the tool is for self-selected passages rather than assigned ones, giving implied usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives such as hand_out.

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