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

Annotations cover openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real value: a reaction without a quote is refused, and recording mutates neither slide nor deck. That validation rule and scope-of-effect statement go beyond the annotations.

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 then the key constraint. Nothing is wasted.

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 described, and the core purpose and the critical quote requirement are covered. The main gap is the undocumented nested reaction fields, but overall it is sufficient 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 coverage is only 33%, so the description carries more burden. It clarifies the quote requirement and implicit slideKey, but leaves companyId, the reactions object fields (screened, occurredAt, meetingTouchId, relationshipId, instructionFlagged) and the enum 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 precise verb (record) and resource (what a slide produced in a meeting), and enumerates the reaction types (question, objection, agreement). It is clearly the write counterpart to fundraising_get_deck_resonance, so an agent can tell the two apart.

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 context of use (recording reactions during/after a meeting) and the hard rule that a reaction needs a quote. It does not explicitly name read alternatives like fundraising_get_deck_resonance, but the recording context is clear.

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