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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations by disclosing a real side effect: a `not_yet` becomes a note asking whoever handed the part out. It also states that `agree` requires the current version, which is a correctness constraint the annotations do not express. Nothing here contradicts readOnlyHint=false / idempotentHint=false.

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 action semantics are front-loaded and every sentence carries real information — no filler. The semicolon-chained sentences are dense and slightly awkward to parse ('their one line on what is off'), but the economy is justified for a five-parameter mutation tool.

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 not be explained, and the description covers the action model, the version-currency rule, and the note side effect. It is not quite complete: the optional `project` parameter and how it interacts with § addresses is left entirely to the schema, and the downstream consequence of an `agree` is not stated.

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?

With schema coverage at 80% the baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by explaining the conditional relationship between parameters: `why` is only for not_yet, `version` is what the person actually read, and `agree` needs the current one. The one gap is `project`, which is left entirely to 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: records a person's answer to a part handed to them, then enumerates the three answer shapes (got_it, agree, not_yet). That is clearly distinguishable from generic note/skill tools, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling tool `agreed`, which an agent could easily confuse with the `agree` action here.

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 final sentence gives a usable trigger — when the person answers a part in this conversation, quoting the likely utterances ('got it', 'agreed', 'not yet, because...'). It stops short of saying when not to use it or naming an alternative, and the near-namesake sibling `agreed` goes unaddressed.

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